Oh, good. You'll explain it's "play acting."
If I came downstairs and noticed that my child was sitting in front of sadistic pornography, for example, and noticed an adult, librarian or other, at the next computer, and saw that they had been aware of the scene and, undisturbed, made no attempt to address the situation (find out where I was, for example)... well, let's say that I would think that that adult was a poor citizen of the community and I would sure as hell not let my child play with any child raised by that adult.
I don't think "it's play acting," said about the sorts of sadistic, sick stuff your hypothetical child will be exposed to unless you do something to see he or she is not, is an adequate response to the situation. So what if it's "play acting"? I wouldn't want any child of mine's developing psyche, and budding psycho-sexual nature, exposed to certain types of "play acting."
And what does "play acting" mean? The scenes of penetration aren't "play acting," they are photographed scenes containing real erections and real vaginas. Do you mean the participants aren't really in love, perhaps? Or maybe you would tell your child that the tied-up woman can signal the naked man with the erection to release her, so don't be upset by the look of agony on her face, really she's enjoying it? Pretending to enjoy it for money? Or what?
It's very unrealistic as a way of addressing what is out there for children to stumble on, imo.
I saw a very mildly pornographic comic book (by current standards) when I was in about the fourth or fifth grade. It was very upsetting to me. And it was a silly comic book with nothing more outrageous than comic strip depictions of intercourse. |
