My farewell

[13788]

mindseye: Good riddance.

There is certainly a difference between talking (or even fantasizing) about rape and raping itself. Substitute bestiality, incest, eating meat, wearing white shoes after Labor Day, or whatever else offends your taste in the above sentence.

Any armchair lawyer (I've counted four so far) that insists that they know what's legal and what's not legal had better cite credible sources. Mark's actually consulted a lawyer regarding LPSG -- the rest of you are speculating.

And any armchair censor who wishes to curtail the expression of other people's ideas in order to conform to his or her taste -- what hypocrites you are! Surely you can imagine the number of people out there who take offense at the very nature of this board. ("Dey talkin' 'bout their peepees! Get mah gun, Mabel!") You no more deserve to have your way with free speech than they do.

Certainly, I agree that anyone should leave who finds the content of this board offensive. And I'm tolerant enough to begrudge you your parting announcement that you're picking up your toys and going home.

But that's not what's happened here. No one's said, "There's a story in Fictitious Stories that made me toss my cookies, and I can't possibly come back after such an unpleasant experience." No one's said that they've actually been offended.

Instead, what they're saying is, "Mark won't moderate the board in the style of my choosing, so I'm leaving." That's a boycott. And it saddens me that people would boycott a group for censoring too little.

Please do leave if you can't stand the idea that the person who's paid for the site for the past two years gets to call the shots. Take hard-earned money out of your own pocket and start the Large Penis (But Not Bestiality, Incest, or Rape) Support Group. I believe that www.lpbnbiorsg.org is still available.

 

[13788]

rainfletcher: Mindseye,

I'm not sure your point is true or not, regardless, let me be the first to say:

I am offended by some of the posts to this board. Deeply, seriously offended. Offended in ways that all but make me want not to participate in this board anymore, despite the value it has had in my life.

I am also offended that the harrasment (call it what it is), and the lack of any meaningful response drove him away.

I am also deeply offended at the loss of the voices of some of the more seasoned posters to this board.

It's my right to say this. For me, for now, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks....

But at some point, this board will be less about LPSG...at that point, I'm not sure what the point is.

I know this, though.

Without the voices of those who've left, LPSG has been significantly diminished....

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

I don't understand it either. I really don't. It was only a couple of days ago that some moderators were arguing on how we should handle Humongous. I couldn't have imagined ever reaching a moral and/or ethical bluff with an Internet web site. Morals belong to institutional research boards, courts of law, churches, hospital wards, surgeries, in front of convocations and conventions, among officials, politicians who don't take them ridiculously far... but not on the LPSG.

Maybe I too made the mistake of assuming that it's as easy as said and done to overlook people and postings that you don't like. Lord knows I've done that plenty while I've been here, and though tough, it's just easier to turn a blind eye than to remark on every single occasion. In any case, I thought Mark made perfect sense, and that in some way, the moderators and associates who are no longer with us felt deeply wounded by that reality check.

In the meantime, I maintain that the administrators could have (and would have) easily dealt with IM flooding and harrassing posts. Mark doesn't stand for that stuff.

As for everything else, if a post offends someone's sensibilities to the extent that they must leave because it violates their ethical base, I... I don't get it. Seriously, I don't. I mean, no offense, but I'm not the greatest fan of some of the homosexual components to the Fictitious Stories. And I don't imagine I'd care for reading about someone fucking a cow. At the same time, I realize that there are people who enjoy thinking about, writing about, and responding to those themes. They're entitled to that. Whose morality is mine to trounce someone else for what they write and think?

While I support Sammy and Max and others in their refusal to participate in the group, I would also challenge them on whether these are moral and ethical violations to the extent that they feel them, or if they are assigning a little too much significance to what is really simply a personal problem, a disagreement with how others think?

Hidden assumptions and biases, y'all.

 

[13788]

abhijit: Press Release
Currie Announces New Legislative Measures to Deal with Child Pornography and Trafficking
The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Austin Currie TD, today (15 April) announced that the Government had noted changes to the proposed legislative measures in relation to child pornography. The purpose of one of the changes today was to specify as £100,000 the maximum fine that can be imposed as an alternative to or in addition to up to 10 years imprisonment for the offences of producing or distributing child pornography. The way is now clear for the Minister to table amendments to the Children Bill, 1996 both in relation to child pornography and the trafficking of children. That Bill is currently awaiting committee stage before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security.

The Minister said "the new proposals on child pornography will enhance the measures already in place to protect children under 17 years of age from sexual exploitation and abuse and in framing these proposals I have taken account of the recently adopted EU Joint Action on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation of Children. I am determined to give children the maximum protection of the law against child pornography and the proposals I am now announcing will afford that protection in the following ways", the Minister added

it will be an offence to produce, print or publish child pornography or to advertise it,

it will be an offence to import, export or distribute child pornography,

it will be an offence to possess child pornography for personal use,

it will be an offence to encourage or allow children to be used to produce such pornography, and

it will also be an offence to traffic in children for the purpose of their sexual exploitation or to abduct children for that purpose.

"I propose to define "child pornography", the Minister said, "so that there will be no doubt as to what constitutes such sickening material".

The sentences of imprisonment following conviction on indictment will range from 3 years to life, depending on the offence. All forms of child pornography - photos, films, videos or material in written or auditory form - will be covered as will the use of the Internet to distribute such pornography.

The Minister added that he also proposed to table other amendments to the Children Bill later this week. These will include a provision substantially increasing the fine for soliciting a child for the purpose of prostitution.

In making the announcement the Minister stated that "These comprehensive new measures will further strengthen the statutory powers of the Garda Síochána in ensuring that children are protected from sexual exploitation and abuse by predatory paedophiles. They will also make it crystal clear that certain behaviour is totally unacceptable in any civilised society".

15 April, 1997.

For More Information Contact:
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
72-76, St. Stephens Green, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: +353 - 1 - 6028202
FAX: +353 - 1 - 6615461
Internet: info@justice.ie

Last modified: November 01, 2000

the owner should still listen to the moderators, and still must obey the law.

This reflects the law of the European Union. It clearly states that distributing or reproducing WRITTEN stories of child sexual encounters under 18 is clearly against the law and punisheable by up to $100,000? and over 3 years in prison. I would expect North American laws and laws of other developed nations like Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, and South Africa would be similar.

Therefore, I, too, must resign.

Good luck, and I hope you awaken to your senses.

 

[Ralexx]

WHAAAAAAAAAATTTT !? !!?! This goes beyond my faculties of comprehension or indignation !!!!

Please ! There is MUCH more to this board than just the insanity of a member or the fantasies of X or Y ! Would you be so kind and re-analyse the motives of your departure ? I refuse to believe that you REALLY gave up !

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Dang

Nony, Sammy, Max I will miss you...in ways that surprise me even. You guys were always little lights on this board. This makes me sad man...

I hardly even knew about the problem. I read about Humongous and all, but I had no idea it has gotten this grave. I also do not know about the moral boundaries this board has. You guys condone bestiality? And I am sorry Mindseye, but I dó think fantasizing, writing, about rape is wrong, cause it will raise the odds that people will express their fantasies. Or give the idea that it is normal. Same goes for kids who see a lotta violence and try out the things they see in real life.

I also think your reply to all this was blunt, and blamefull. I guess it is all about which set of morals you have. And some people seem to have a lot less moral value than others.

I personally think it is wrong to write about bestiality, or fantasize about rape, sex with children and anything else that would be legal if expressed. I don't care if your non-arm-chair lawyers said that according to the letter of the law this site isnt idoing anything illegal. Im glad you have such a wise, and typical lawyer. But besides the letter of the law there is just 'the right thing to do'.

I would like to hear a response from Mark on all this. And I mean that. He cannot go by this without stating something here. I for one would also like to know where exactly the boundaries of this site lay. Cause having to MENTION that childporn will nót be condoned is not something that pleads for you.

i understand that in this liberal world it is very cool to think easy about anything, and very uncool to censor anything, but I find it to be cooler to have a smal set of boundaries, and my God, one can hardly call it a boundary with all the other things we cán discuss here.

Dee, I understand how you dont understand this ???. But I do, sure they can skip whatever they do not want to read, but it is about knowing that you are joining an visiting a site that supports these actions. Its the association to it.

I for one understand this very well, and I would really like to know what i going on here from you Mark. I'm seriously considering leaving as well, cause although i have no problem with just not reading what i dont want to read, the association aches me as well. And I miss Nony and Sammy.

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=Javierdude23 link=board=99;num=1068001982;start=20#25 date=11/05/03 at 01:48:12]And I am sorry Mindseye, but I dó think fantasizing, writing, about rape is wrong.[/quote]

You've put words in my mouth; I didn't say anything about whether fantasizing about rape was right or wrong. I meant (although I didn't state it clearly) that (1) the armchair lawyers are wrong: writing rape fantasies (or other 'taboo' fiction) is a legally protected form of expression (2) censorship of these topics (including pick-and-choose censorship by a couple who writes freely about bdsm and slavery but thinks these other topics are yucky) is an actual wrong, as opposed to the hypothetical wrong you bring up that someone might be inspired to commit rape in the same way that someone who watches Natural Born Killers might be 'inspired' to commit murder.

You were right in that I am being blameful. I may elaborate in the future, but I think I've given their stunt far more attention than it deserves.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Could we hear from Mark, or are you posting for him?

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1068001982;start=20#27 date=11/05/03 at 02:20:39]Could we hear from Mark, or are you posting for him?[/quote]

In case you weren't being rhetorical, I was responding to a quote directed specifically toward me by name (and included in my post). I wasn't speaking for anyone else. I'm opinionated, not presumptuous.

 

[13788]

prepstudinsc: I'm really torn about all of this.....I understand and agree with some of the points brought forth by Nony, Sammy and Maximillian, but at the same time, I'm all for free speach. I'm wrestling with my conscience right now because like several other posters, I've been contaced by underage kids asking all sorts of very direct sexual questions. I don't know that it's my place to be the one to guide and instruct them. I do know that I feel that any reference to child pornography, child molestation, bestiality or rape (implied or directly stated) is wrong in my book. This is such a sticky issue.....I'm going to take some time to think about my actions before I decide to stay or go. In the meantime, I may just go into lurk mode, I haven't decided....

 

[13788]

awellhungboi: I think everybody's way overreacting.  I really try to avoid Internet drama, because it doesn't add up to a hill of beans.  This is the kind of stuff I expect to see on livejournal.  Sturm und drang--tearful goodbyes.

Sammy, Nony, and Maximillian are my friends, I love them and I'll miss them, but what does this accomplish?      

My understanding--and this is just my reading of the situation, and I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth--is that over the weekend (Fri. Sat.) we had a lot going on with a certain poster.  We were trying to deal with the situation.  Mark posted in the mod's lounge saying (or I interpreted him as saying) we were overstepping our bounds as mods,  and creating rather than solving problems, and to chill out.  I thought, "Hmm, maybe he has a point."  It's his board-- so I chilled out.

I think a lot of this stuff about bestiality and child porn is a red herring, though.  I suspect that's not the core motivation of this thing.  With that said, everybody's got to do what they've got to do.  But we live in a very difficult time . . . . yesterday CBS cancelled its miniseries about the Reagans, after substantial right-wing pressure because it dared portray R.R. as . . . a flawed human being.  Jesus Christ.  So Mark has a point.  Bestiality is disgusting to me, but we're on the front lines here people--it gets a little messy.  Freedom of speech is a precious thing.

For me, this site helps me deal with emotions, experiences, and feelings I have about my body (okay, my big dick).  And I've made friends here--which I never expected when I first started posting.  So I hope everybody just takes a deep breath and tries to put this in some perspective and act like adults.    

 

[13788]

awellhungboi: Let me add a mea culpa here, as well.  After thinking about it for 48 hours (and I wish I would have thought about it longer at the time)--my deleting the threads that started all this was an abrogation of trust on my part.  Getting rid of something simply because it offended me (although I didn't justify it that way at the time) was a HUGE mistake.  Given my strong feelings about the 1st amendment, (I'm a writer, for those of you who don't know) I'm disappointed in myself. My apologies to Mark and everybody else--it won't happen again.

With that said, lookit--Anais Nin, Tennesse Williams, Henry Miller, James Joyce, Vladimir Nabokov, Tennessee Williams, Margaret Atwood, Thomas Pynchon . . . all have written about 'taboo' subjects.  Writing about a crime is not a crime.  

 

[Pecker]

When growing up I was told which closets to stay out of, which drawers not to open and which boxes in the attic were off limits. As long as I obeyed I was happy.

I see certain topics on the board the same way and as long as I don't have to see what's behind those doors I'm happy to stay with the board. I don't ever read Fictitious Stories or Personals and I don't plan to - that would compromise my core belief system.

My choice. My conscience.

I have a feeling it is not the content of the board which precipitated this exodus, but the rantings of one poster, who chose to spam his detractors. What a shame. Dislike of his actions became dislike of the board owner, a misplaced finger-pointing that unfortunately cost us a few of our good friends.

Grand Deevah left us once for a similar reason. She returned as AnonyMs. Perhaps we'll be blessed with her re-return someday.

Pecker

 

[13788]

wvalady1968: OMG, see what happens when I don't pay attention for a while?!

Do none of us have a vote on the mindset of this place? I agree totally with what you all are saying, and I don't want to leave here, either. And I don't want the jerks to win by driving off all the good people!!

Damn! Is there no other recourse?? HELP!

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

Consider how we conveniently throw the word "wrong" around in this scenario.

As Javier uses it, "wrong" acknowledges a misguided extension of one's perspective as it relates to the law. Yes, if enacted, these acts are illegal. But there's a grand difference between writing about these acts, even thinking them... versus performing them. Case in point, I have a pretty sick and twisted imagination sometimes. So if I've watched Kill Bill and that got me in a mood to play swordfighter in my head, if I envision hacking-and-slashing through all those ninjas, does that make me any more likely to go out, purchase a katana, and use my colleagues in the MFT program as practice dummies? Of course not.

Stop playing with legal terminology and acknowledge, point blank, that child pornography, bestiality, even Sammy's and Max's own participation in the BDSM lifestyle, might be disturbing to you. Hell, I don't deny it. Child pornography is a much rockier situation.

Mark expressed his point-of-view here:

[quote author=Mark_LPSG Admin link=board=moderators;num=1067838238;start=0#15 date=11/03/03 at 17:26:48]The only reasons I can think of that would justify deleting a member's posting is if:

1) He or she is harrasing other members.

2) Links to child pornography are being posted. (and that means pictures or videos, not stories), or

3) The poster is a "spammer" and is contributing nothing constructive to the conversation.

And even with those 3 guidelines, I don't think that a Terms Of Service is necessary. Those are "common-sense rules" in my opinion, and if they're not obvious to someone, well, they'll just have to learn through their experience here.[/quote]

I think I'm allowed to take issue with point #2. Mark does not condone child pornography representations on the site. I don't agree with stories being excluded from his criterion, but at the same time, I would argue that people have and are entitled to distaste for such media. Don't like it? Don't read it. Pictures and videos on the other hand are more sensory-interactive media; it's really hard to get a banner-ad for Totboy.com out of your head if a pop-up window keeps flashing on your screen (imprinting itself in your mind).

I'm with Monstro. I hope the drama dies soon and quickly; otherwise, we're never going to have the rather solid group dynamics we had had up until this Grand Schism in the LPSG Church. I know I'm going to post and to surf the 'Net and help out over in Administrative Issues as much as I can. I know I'm going to accept IMs and chat with people if they contact me, "quitter" or not.

Peace, folks.

 

[jdoe86]

I don't know what happened or how it started. I will miss those who left. I do not condone some of the things that are writen here, but I do respect their right to write it. I just urge those who write some of these things to seek professional help. I have known a few people who turned out to do some of these things that were writen about and they are no longer my friends.. and are in jail. I will keep in touch with those who left, they are my friends until they do something that ends that friendship.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: I will have to add my expression of sadness to those that have decided to depart. Obviously, this will not affect matters that much, but if any member is receiving unwanted IMs then there is an 'ignore' feature to reject IMs from that participant.

As for Dees comment re: Marks point #2

I think the reason for singling out stories is that no-one other than the author has to be involved in fictional writing, whereas a pic or video has to involve a child in its production out of necessity.

Tough one for me to call, but I think I'll probably post on both sites for now - hopefully they will re-merge in future.

 

[13788]

huge_cock_have_pic: As an attorney I will throw in my two cents.

1) Writing about sex with a child IS pornography under US law.

2) Plagerism may or may not be illegal but it IS unethical because it IS theft.

3) Harassment should never be tolerated.

I am pretty new to this site and have enjoyed it so far. I've met some people online whose company I enjoy but these types of posts offend me to the point I have to consider whether I want to remain a member.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

I'm posting a response because of all the IMs asking whether I'm staying or going. Please excuse me if this post seems strangely disorganised. I'm still numb from the events of last night.

First, a quote and a question:

[quote author=huge_cock_have_pic link=board=99;num=1068001982;start=20#37 date=11/05/03 at 10:35:48]As an attorney I will throw in my two cents.  

1)  Writing about sex with a child IS pornography under US law.  
[/quote]

Does that mean that Nabokov's classic Lolita is pornographic? After all, Lolita was twelve years old. My public library has porn?

One of the other objections was to incest. Might I mention V. C. Andrews's Flowers in the Attic? The main character Cathy was the product of an incestuous union, and she is carrying on the family tradition with her brother Chris. I've never heard objections to the content of that book.

And incest, child sexuality, bestiality, rape, necrophilia ... they've all been portrayed in movies. Does anyone seriously consider those films to be illegal?

As has been said before, it's Mark's site. The call is his. Content considered objectionable by many of us is not banned by him. While some of this subject matter is not my cup of tea, I respect Mark's wish to let it remain. I rarely venture into Fictitious Stories, and I can ignore stories with subject matter that doesn't appeal to me.

Then there's HUMONGOUS. He has not bothered me personally, but I do have a problem with his stealing stories from other sites and insisting that he's the author. He has harassed people, and he is the main reason for Sammy's and Maximillian's exits ... not the objectionable subject content. I can't control this, and apparently Administration has no desire to.

I will miss many who are leaving. I will especially miss Nony, as she and I swapped IMs frequently. I cannot agree with "Good riddance." Good riddance to some of LPSG's most productive posters? Nony and Sammy especially contributed information and advice with more concern and patience than I can often muster. Their leaving is nothing good. And 'stunt[/]'? No. I completely understand their decision.

Now, enough rambling and on with MY decision. With events in my life right now, I need routine and regularity. LPSG is part of my routine and it provides me with something to occupy me when I stress out. I was not here last night when the grand opera broke out, but I can deal with the drama of the aftermath here much more easily than I can withstand offline drama. There are people here that I consider friends. I don't want to walk away from their IMs without looking back. LPSG is not a major part of my life by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a place where I am welcome and where I can think about something apart from my personal problems. And if I can help someone in the process, great.

For now, at least, I'm staying.

 

[13788]

huge_cock_have_pic: In response to DMW, yes it is child pornography. Are the laws enforced? Not all the time but Lolita can very well be classified as child pornography under US law.

Secondly, it all depends on what you mean by portrayal in the movies. But, to show a child and an adult having sex together: that is child pornography.

To write about a child and an adult having sex together: that is child pornography.