Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

bronte wrote: »

Oh gee thanks Prinz!

You're welcome. It was obvious you were going down a dead-end.

bronte wrote: »

No artistic license for all then...how lovely.

God I hate this kind of double standard. As long as one is gay, or a member of a minority, one can get away with saying or producing stuff that the rest of us would be villified for. He had artistic license in writing the play, and I have license to point out the troubling aspects of it. Were a straight man to produce a play involving sex between a man and a 13 y/o girl, and do so in a way that attempted to romanticise such predation, then I would have a similar reaction, and I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with my criticisms.

bronte

prinz wrote: »

You're welcome. It was obvious you were going down a dead-end.

Your humility, as always knows no bounds.

Someday I'll manage to achieve same.

prinz wrote: »

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy. 'Pleasure lies between the thighs of a young boy' so it went..Must be nuanced.

It was a play!

oppenheimer1

Einhard wrote: »

God I hate this kind of double standard. As long as one is gay, or a member of a minority, one can get away with saying or producing stuff that the rest of us would be villified for. He had artistic license in writing the play, and I have license to point out the troubling aspects of it. Were a straight man to produce a play involving sex between a man and a 13 y/o girl, and do so in a way that attempted to romanticise such predation, then I would have a similar reaction, and I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with my criticisms.

Did you not get the memo? Stephen Fry is above criticism.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Did you not get the memo? Stephen Fry is above criticism.

More accurately, certain groups in society are above criticism.

optogirl wrote: »

It was a play!

...and I am sure you'd be just as quick to defend it, had it been written by a member of the clergy. The underlying point being, there are things people have said/written that they should explain in more detail, the reasoning, the context, the background.

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think that was the point, but rather that Fry condemned child abuse, and yet wrote a play in which it was portrayed as a positive sexual experience.

For fictional characters and let's be honest - not all teacher/student relationships are 100% one-sided or unwelcome. The point being made here seems to be that writing a fictional account of something should preclude you from having an opinion on it - ridiculous.

AnonoBoy

Einhard wrote: »

He had artistic license in writing the play, and I have license to point out the troubling aspects of it. Were a straight man to produce a play involving sex between a man and a 13 y/o girl, and do so in a way that attempted to romanticise such predation, then I would have a similar reaction, and I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with my criticisms.

There's a classic novel called Lolita.

You may not have heard of it.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Did you not get the memo? Stephen Fry is above criticism.

Lolita? On the Classic shelves in most bookshops

optogirl wrote: »

For fictional characters and let's be honest - not all teacher/student relationships are 100% one-sided or unwelcome. The point being made here seems to be that writing a fictional account of something should preclude you from having an opinion on it - ridiculous.

Eh, no that's not the point that anyone has been making here. As for the former point re the 100% one-sidedness, I take it you feel that way about most adult-teen 'relationships'/abuse? Seeing as how the vast majority of child sex abuse actually relates to post-pubescent teens, what percentage would you say were welcome?

PeterIanStaker

These are the exact kind of morons that'll vote for that odious slimeball Bertie Ahern.

Einhard wrote: »

God I hate this kind of double standard. As long as one is gay, or a member of a minority, one can get away with saying or producing stuff that the rest of us would be villified for. He had artistic license in writing the play, and I have license to point out the troubling aspects of it. Were a straight man to produce a play involving sex between a man and a 13 y/o girl, and do so in a way that attempted to romanticise such predation, then I would have a similar reaction, and I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with my criticisms.

Lolita? On the Classics shelves of most bookshops

wild_cat

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

info@campaignforconscience.org

It would be a terrible shame if this email address somehow ended up getting spammed.

Hopefully they will be all of a gay persuasion as well.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

There's a classic novel called Lolita.

You may not have heard of it.

optogirl wrote: »

Lolita? On the Classic shelves in most bookshops

Not only have I heard of it, but I've read it too. Which obviously neither of you have.

Snakeblood

Einhard wrote: »

God I hate this kind of double standard. As long as one is gay, or a member of a minority, one can get away with saying or producing stuff that the rest of us would be villified for. He had artistic license in writing the play, and I have license to point out the troubling aspects of it. Were a straight man to produce a play involving sex between a man and a 13 y/o girl, and do so in a way that attempted to romanticise such predation, then I would have a similar reaction, and I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with my criticisms.

No one is stopping you criticising though.

prinz wrote: »

Eh, no that's not the point that anyone has been making here. As for the former point re the 100% one-sidedness, I take it you feel that way about most adult-teen 'relationships'/abuse?

What does this post mean then?

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy.

And with regard to most adult-teen relationships - No, I said NOT ALL are unwelcome. There are several cases of couples who go on to marry despite one of them having been the others teacher and even in some cases serving time for it. I didn't mention my personal feelings on it because I don't think you can judge every single case of this in exactly the same way. As usual Prinz, you like to pick and choose phrases to pounce on without actually reading people's posts.

Snakeblood wrote: »

No one is stopping you criticising though.

I'm not demanding that his plays be censored or blacklisted.

AnonoBoy

Einhard wrote: »

Not only have I heard of it, but I've read it too. Which obviously neither of you have.

Obviously have I not? Where'd you get that from?

I have read it.

My point was it was written by a straight man about an adult having sex with an underage girl.

wild_cat

I just reported the facebook site they have linked from their main web page. It seems to be for Enoch Burke he's listed as the "Administrator: Campaign for Conscience"

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001766582603&v=wall

Ye should all report it.

Einhard wrote: »

Not only have I heard of it, but I've read it too. Which obviously neither of you have.

What? Is that supposed to be an insult? I have read it, not that it means anything. The point we were making is that there have been books written showing relationships like this as a pleasurable experience. That's all.

oppenheimer1

optogirl wrote: »

Lolita? On the Classics shelves of most bookshops

I see you've discovered how to use copy and paste. Well done.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Don't presume. I have read it.

My point was it was written by a straight man about an adult having sex with an underage girl.

I presumed because nobody who's read Lolita could possibly compare it to a play which is "an honest - if misguided - effort to justify the sexual relationship between a 26-year-old teacher and a teenage boy." The relationship between Humbert and Lolita is a tragic and destructive one, and is never presented in a positive light. Humbert is a despicable character. I don't see how it can possibly be compared with a comic play in which a teacher sexually preys on a 13 y/o boy.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I see you've discovered how to use copy and paste. Well done.

Pardon?

optogirl wrote: »

What? Is that supposed to be an insult? I have read it, not that it means anything. The point we were making is that there have been books written showing relationships like this as a pleasurable experience. That's all.

You haven't read it. I know that because nobody who has read Lolita could possibly describe the relationship between Humbert and Lolita as a pleasurable one. That's the whole point of the novel. Humbert is a villainous character, but also a tragic one, and is destoryed by his lust for Lolita. It's the very antithesis of pleasure.

Einhard wrote: »

I presumed because nobody who's read Lolita could possibly compare it to a play which is "an honest - if misguided - effort to justify the sexual relationship between a 26-year-old teacher and a teenage boy." The relationship between Humbert and Lolita is a tragic and destructive one, and is never presented in a positive light. Humbert is a despicable character. I don't see how it can possibly be compared with a comic play in which a teacher sexually preys on a 13 y/o boy.

Of course they are comparable - aside from the fact that Lolita has her part to play in Humbert's seduction, the point was that a straight man DID write a book about the relationship between an adult male and a female child.

AnonoBoy

Einhard wrote: »

I presumed because nobody who's read Lolita could possibly compare it to a play which is "an honest - if misguided - effort to justify the sexual relationship between a 26-year-old teacher and a teenage boy." The relationship between Humbert and Lolita is a tragic and destructive one, and is never presented in a positive light. Humbert is a despicable character. I don't see how it can possibly be compared with a comic play in which a teacher sexually preys on a 13 y/o boy.

I haven't read the play so I have no idea how it portrays the teacher.

Einhard wrote: »

You haven't read it. I know that because nobody who has read Lolita could possibly describe the relationship between Humbert and Lolita as a pleasurable one. That's the whole point of the novel. Humbert is a villainous character, but also a tragic one, and is destoryed by his lust for Lolita. It's the very antithesis of pleasure.

I don't agree - I think it very cleverly depicts how Humbert's desires are manipulated by Lolita - of course he is villainous by virtue of acting on them, he is the adult after all, but it blurs the lines between precocious flirtation of a child and the sexuality of a woman