The Return of Coatlique

Well, it was bad enough when you defended pornography, but now you are defending child pornography.

You chastise working mothers for supposedly destroying their children, and then you defend the sexual exploitation of children, saying that it is not hurting them at all. You also say that fathers who contribute to this societal problem by buying and looking at child pornography are also doing nothing wrong. It's perfectly fine for a father to support and industry that thrives on the forced sexual slavery of children, but it is horrible and devestating to our country for a mother to dare to--gasp--have a job.

Yes, your thinking is very irrational and illogical and you are the King of H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y. And the reason why you I call you "King" is because I know you are a man--not that being a man is bad, just that being an ignorant man is bad.

Futhermore, you keep giving us all of these "quotes," "statistics," and "stories," but you do not give us any referrences. If you want to portray yourself as an intellectual and scholarly person who has a firm grasp on reading and writing and it so much smarter than everybody else, then you should at least cite your sources. I mean, come on, that's a bare minimum.

While I agree with you that there is a stereotype that child molestation is usually commited by strangers even though it is much more likely to be commited by a friend of the family or family member--and that people need to pay more attention to that-- rasing awareness about molestation within families and eliminating child pornography are not mutually exclusive. It is not eliminate child porn OR send real child moesters to prison. In fact, the two strategies should to hand in hand as a more holistic solution to the problem. When there is a problem with many contributing factors, we must get rid of all the factors, not just some of them.



Lisa Baker continues:

I forgot to add in my previous e-mail that furthermore, child pornographers ARE real child molesters. If putting a naked/half naked child in front of a camera, taking a picture of her or him, and then selling the picture to men who want to jack off to it is not child molest then I don't now what the hell is.

My point is even more obvious in cases where the child is forced or coerced into sex acts that are then recorded by video tapes or photographs You try to seperate the issue of child pornography from the issue of child molest, saying that the two are seperate and distinct things, but let me inform your "rational" mind that just because an event takes place in front of a camera that does not mean it is as if it never happened. The presence of a camera does not negate the reality of a situation.

In other words, it is not true, or rational to believe, that a child is not really being molested just because somebody is taking pictures while the child is being molested.

The pornographic industry is not an industry that is in the business of expressing "thoughts" and "ideas." The pornography industry is an industry that it in the business of buying and selling women and children--actual, real, flesh and blood women and children--as sexual products, often without their consent and never with children's consent because children are not able to give their consent.

When someone sells a picture of a naked child or puts a picture of a naked child up on the internet, that person is not expressing the idea of a naked child. That child in that picture is a real child, not the concept of a child. Real children are really vitimized and that is how child porngraphy exists.

In order to get from step A to step C you have to go through step B. But, of course, you understand, because any rational person would know that.

Providing jack-off material for white misogynists since 1997.

The Misanthropic Bitch does not encourage feedback. You are not as clever, witty or hate-filled as you think you are. All submissions, though, become property of The Misanthropic Bitch. Submissions may be published or reused in any other medium. Think before you hit send.