The human centipede

What a sick pile of trash.

If you don't know what the film is about (and want to) click the link because I'm not about to start explaining it here. I've already gone far enough to lure sickos here through Google searches.

This film is directed by a certain Mr Tom Six, a sick freako if ever there was one. I enjoy a good horror film but I draw the line at watching the sick for sicks sake, fantasies of a raving sicko.

It did get me thinking though.

This whackjob has found an outlet for his sick sickiness by creating sick film. He could be torturing cats for his kicks. He could be pulling the wings off birds or the legs off babies even.

He has also created an outlet for other sick freaks who need a big dose of sick. Moonbats who might otherwise be out setting light to pelicans can sit at home and float their boats harmlessly by watching this guys movies.

There resides many a mental fruitcake in this world. It's part of life; a fact we cannot escape. Sometimes they act out their delusional whacked out fantasies in real life, to the great detriment and harm of other people and society in general.

Others can satisfy their loony lusts in a much more benign manner, such as the crackpot who sits down to an evening of The Human Centipede and a bowl of popcorn rather than going out and stapling cows to each other.

Not only is it an outlet for the crazies, it doesn't come with the added risk of being sent to prison or a loony bin.

Like I said, there are many a mental case in our world.

Take peados for example.

The thought of having sex with a nine year old boy would sicken those of us who profess to be 'normal'. Any peado will tell you that it isn't their fault who they find attractive. That to them it is perfectly normal. That it's only society that says how old a person must be etc, etc, etc until the cows come home (if they haven't been stapled together).

There is a train of thought that goes a little bit like this: If a peado is sat at his computer watching child porn, he isn't out molesting children.

I am going to stick with the term 'child porn' rather than some of the more politically correct terms that have been banded about recently such as 'child abuse video'.

It's about time we stopped with this idea that it's the words that matter rather than the meaning. When we think of child porn, we don't get an image of children happily participating in the porn industry, Ron Jeremy Junior style, we think abuse. Changing the terminology does not change meaning. We understand the meaning.

Anyway, I digress. As I was saying, the thought goes, if a perv is watching child porn, he's not out abusing children.

If one person makes one child porn vid that then goes out onto the internet and is watched by a thousand peados, have nine-hundred and ninety-nine children been saved from abuse?

What would happen if child porn was stamped out altogether? What if the government banned all citizens from owning any king of film making equipment or computer equipment and the internet was completely taken down?

Note to government. I'm not trying to give you ideas.

If that happened, would child abuse

A) Go down?
B) Go up?

I would go up wouldn't it. It would vastly increase because all the kiddie fiddlers out there would have to start abusing children in order to get their fix.

Either that or join the Catholic church. Oh wait...

Now I'm sure that any right minded person out there would argue, quite rightly, that saving a lot of children from abuse is not justification for harming some.

What if no children are harmed? What about computer generated child porn, cartoons or drawings?

Allowing people to posses child porn of any description is way beyond the imagination of the people and governments of most countries, even where no one could have been harmed in making it. Some have outlawed it along with standard child porn on the premise that it encourages abuse.

From Wikipedia

Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made," for inciting abuse. An argument is the claim that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection, and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating an outlet for desires that could motivate crime. This is exemplified in a case involving a man, from Virginia who, while arrested after viewing lolicon at a public library, asserted that he had quit collecting real child pornography and switched to lolicon.

People are already being threatened with prison or are already incarcerated for possessing Japanese comic book images that are not even intended to be pornographic.

The ban on pornographic pictures of children in the UK is of course, far reaching and covers many instances where no crime could be perceived to have been committed.

Legislation to mirror this in the United Kingdom will be in force from the spring of 2010. At the upper edge, this encapsulates pornographic depictions of even seventeen-year olds together, or adults (such as small-breasted women) where the predominant impression conveyed is of a person under the age of 18.

So even possessing pictures of a consenting adult is illegal if someone (Who decides?) thinks they look under 18.

Mrs Bucko is 30, yet she sometimes gets asked for ID buying fags in the co-op. Add to this, the governments desire to block all internet porn at the point of access, and make people 'opt in' if they want to view it, we may be on the road to banning every kind of pornography.

Will abuse

A) go down?
B) go up?

We make films for cat torturers, we give methodone to heroin addicts.

Should we let peados have their cartoon kiddies?


English Viking said...

Smoking Hot said...

Paul said...

JuliaM said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

James Higham said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Anonymous said...

Bucko said...

Paul said...

Anonymous said...