May 26, 2005
WE KNOW WHAT COMES AFTER THE RAINBOW SIGN:
'Educational' smut for kids (Michelle Malkin, May 26, 2005, Townhall)
Here's a rich irony: I'm writing today about a new children's book, but I can't describe the plot in a family newspaper without warning you first that it is entirely inappropriate for children.The book is "Rainbow Party," by juvenile fiction author Paul Ruditis. The publisher is Simon Pulse, a kiddie lit division of the esteemed Simon & Schuster. [...]
The main characters in the book are high school sophomores -- supposedly typical 14- and 15-year-olds with names such as "Gin" and "Sandy." The book opens with these two girls shopping for lipstick at the mall in advance of a special party. The girls banter as they hunt for lipsticks in every color of the rainbow:
"Okay, we've got red, orange, and purple," Gin said. "Now we just need yellow, green, and blue."
"Don't forget indigo," Sandy said as she scanned the row of lipstick tubes.
"What are you talking about?"
"Indigo," Sandy repeated as if that explained everything. "You know. ROY G. BIV. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet."
"That's seven lipsticks. Only six girls are coming. We don't need it."
What kind of party do you imagine they might be organizing? Perhaps a makeover party? With moms and daughters sharing their best beauty secrets and bonding in the process?
Alas, no. No parents are invited to this get-together. A "rainbow party," you see, is a gathering of boys and girls for the purpose of engaging in group oral sex. Each girl wears a different colored lipstick and leaves a mark on each boy. At night's end, the boys proudly sport their own cosmetically sealed rainbow you-know-where -- bringing a whole new meaning to the concept of "party favors."
Frank Rich's column defending this practice comes out tomorrow. Posted by Matt Murphy at May 26, 2005 11:26 PM
I have a brilliant idea... the "Chastity Gag"! Saves your daughter's virtue and your eardrums at the same time!
Posted by: Just John at May 27, 2005 12:45 AMSo why doesn't this qualify as child pr0n? Sounds like Mr. Paul Ruditis has a future writing for Nickelodeon, too.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 27, 2005 1:25 AMMore Clinton legacy on parade.
Posted by: erp at May 27, 2005 8:32 AMRaoul: Didn't the Supreme Court rule a few years ago that kiddie pr0n is protected by the First Amendment?
Posted by: b at May 27, 2005 10:46 AMb: I think that it ruled that something that pretends to be kiddie pr0n but isn't is constitutionally protected.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 27, 2005 11:14 AMDavid: I thought they ruled that an image that wasn't created with a real child was protected. So wouldn't that automatically protect all written material?
Posted by: b at May 27, 2005 11:48 AMSo it only become pr0n only when they do the direct-to-DVD version with live actors. Gotcha.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 27, 2005 12:02 PMb: I think you're description is right. Written pr0n, like almost all writings, can not be regulated. Pr0n using actual children can be. The question, if I remember correctly (and I refuse to do the Google search that would find the answer), is what about pr0n that uses actors who, though of legal age, look like minors, or are animated. The government argued that anything that supplied the child pr0n market was dangerous to children, but the Court disagreed. (Though, as I said, all this is from memory and I could easily be misremembering.)
Posted by: David Cohen at May 27, 2005 1:15 PM