[EVA] Asuka and Rei. The Real EVA Couples Question!

[Avery Hough]

There is a thin line between pornography and art. But I tend to agree with
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens when he said, "I know pornography
when I see it."

> Shinji whacking away in EoE would be considered sexual, wouldn't it???

Well the definition that I gave for pornography, which I think is a pretty
good one, was depiction of sexual acts for the main purpose of arousal. Was
Shinji's masturbating/whacking/whatever you want to call it for the purpose
of arousal? Did you actually see Shinji masturbating? I think you can say
that this part of EoE was not pornography. But it can be hard to tell. The
USA, the country whose laws I was referring to, is very conservative. Many
artist have gotten in serious trouble for what they considered art.
Mapplethorpe is the best explain I can remember. Are his photo's obscenity
or art? I don't know. But there is one thing that I can tell you. A
discussion of two children having sex by "horny teenagers" is not
"intellectually edifying." When messages consist only to tell others that
they drool over such thoughts, this is neither mature nor appropriate. I am
not trying to be a "PC Thug" ("The Simpsons" can relate anything).The point
isn't whether the relationship is physically possible it is whether or not
it actually occurred in Evangelion. I agree with those of you who said that
14 year olds can be capable of complex adult relationships and emotions. But
the law of the United States generally disagrees with you. And Furthermore,
the characters in Evangelion had no such relationship. I still don't believe
that Rei was emotionally developed enough to consent to such a sexual
relationship. But again I am wandering from my point. It doesn't matter
whether Rei or Auska or Pen-Pen or Misato or Shinji or any other characters
could have had a relationship. What matters is if they had that kind of
relationship. If there is rational evidence to support claims that some
character felt this way about another character then by all means it is a
topic worthy of discussion. But telling us you drool about a relationship
that didn't happen in Evangelion is not worth my time.

<One of those things protected under Amendment One.

I hate when people go throwing the first amendment around as though it is
the answer to every question. The first amendment doesn't protect all
speech. For example, you can not lie in a contract. You can not say
"fighting words", words that tend to incite immediate riot. And finally
obscenity is not protected under the first amendment. If you yell out in
public "motherf*cker!", the cops can charge you with disturbing the peace or
something like it. The Supreme court has found that there are other ways to
express your opinions other than obscenity. Child Pornography is considered
obscenity. I am not against the portrayal of children in a sexual
relationship. I am against the portrayal of children in a sexual
relationships for the purpose of arousal. I am against a discussion that
purely exists express your arousal at the thought of two children having
sex.

Sorry if I have dragged this off topic but I think it was off topic to begin
with.

If you want to say anything more about it e-mail me,

Avery

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jorge Davila" <ranma at coqui.net>
To: <evangelion at eva.onegeek.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [EVA] Asuka and Rei. The Real EVA Couples Question!


> > "Child pornography is illegal under federal and state laws prohibiting
the
> > depiction of minors in sexual acts."(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of
Law)
>

>
> > It doesn't matter if the depiction is animated or written. Depiction of
> > sexual acts involving a minor is Child Pornography. The law is never
> > "fuzzy." if it is it is unconstitutional.
>
> Are you talking about the USA laws or the laws of the world?
>
>
> > However, none of this is the main thrust of what I am saying. All I was
> > trying to say is that we shouldn't be disscusing the sexual relationship
> of
> > Auska/Rei. Again I repeat: If
> > you have good evidence to support that one of them actually harbored
such
> > feelings. Then go ahead discuss it.
>
> This is true.
>
>
>