Another Kind of Pussy

I came across this article today, which is apparently a more serious version of an extremely silly thing in some movie.

Anyway it talks about Sheepdogs, Sheep, and Wolves.

See, I think I am something else. I am a cat.

I am lazy and self centered, but not aggressively predatory unless I need to be. I avoid wolves when I can, find sheepdogs annoying but leave them alone of they leave me alone, and mostly completely ignore sheep. I will flee most of the time when threatened but I think I am capable of violence if cornered. Mostly I try and find ways to entertain myself, but do very little work.

I try to figure out these silly little creatures who work so hard. I look at the sheep, which are apparently as far as I can see, only exist to be sheered, or worse, made into a meal. I look at the loyal sheep dog who barks orders and makes a fool of himself. But you know, they DO keep the wolves away. I guess I can thank them for that. No one likes wolves.

And I guess sheepdogs may find my attitude disgusting. Every once and a while a sheepdog will bark at us cats and we may get into a little fight. But you know what buster? I don't need you... or I tell myself that anyway. I could leave and become a stray... but it's nice living here ya know?

So what am I going to do? I won't become a sheep. I am not going to be shaved or devoured. And I won't become a sheepdog. I don't do tricks on command. And I won't become a wolf, which have to hunt and kill for food. And I don't really want to extend this metaphor into uncomfortable territory by bringing vermin into play.

You know what is the funny thing is? I am probably kept as a pet. Fed some food every once and a while, and kept for sympathy. I am too fat and lazy to do any real work, and even if I could I probably wouldn't. This whole "society" thing? Yeah it's nice and all, but what about the cats from long ago who lived as predators. Even dogs are relater to wolves that have been taken out of the wild.

You know, I am not even sure what point I was trying to make. Except maybe this: This whole Wolf/Sheepdog/Sheep thing? It's not that simple. Not everyone is a happy little sheep that obey everything and need defending, and not all "evils" are aggressive wolves. And not all sheepdogs know what they are talking about for that matter. Of them all, ironically, it might be the cat that is the most adaptable of them.

And maybe this metaphor was way too furry.

Entertainment Tomorrow

I am sure anyone who bothers to read this blog has noticed I fixate mostly on games, and occasionally other forms of entertainment. A lot of my political views and such are also related to things like copyright and consumerism. So I want to take this time to sit down and share some of my views on the subject:

Why entertainment is important:

Entertainment in some form or another has been a important part of human civilization for almost as log as it existed. People may not thing the entertainment industry is a big deal, but if you think about how much time and money is spent by people on entertainment, and how passionately people follow this stuff, you may change your mind. Who tend to be the famous celebrities that most people recognize? Actors, musicians, sports athletes, writers, etc. All entertainers in some form. Sure powerful leaders may have the same fame, and a handful of inventors and scientists, but there are still tons of people who don't do much but entertain.

Along with that, I feel it's very possible that as science and progress grew and religion seemed more and more silly by a lot of people, fiction started to replace myth, and fandom started to replace old religious practices. Where before myths of spirits and gods motivated people to do strange rituals in the woods by the full moon, now fans start elaborate little cults to worship their favorite show, with rituals such as conventions and dressing yup as there favorite character. I am sure a whole essay can and has been written on that subject, and I probably mentioned it before, so I will say no more, except that entertainment is no longer entertainment to most people.

The difference between entertainment and art:

Entertainment by it's self doesn't have a much grander goal then giving a person a way of occupying time without doing actual work. And in fact the reason entertainment even exists is because when building early civilization mankind suddenly started to need to work less and less, and had more free time for which to do things. Entertainment is often treated as an alternative to work, but that's not it's function.

I have said before that "art is about invoking an experience or idea though different mediums. It is an act of reflection of experience or ideas". Perhaps it would be better to narrow that definition a bit, at least in this case. Art also probably was mostly invented to fill a gap, and that gap was meaning. At the same time entertainment started to emerge, art did to. This time the question was not so much "what should I do with my time" as it was "what does what I do what my time mean". By coming up with ideas of beauty and other things, and trying to express those ideas some way, art attempts to come up with a meaning that people can connect to, a drive to do things. I could go on and speculate that science, religion, philosophy, and other things are all also related to this revolution of free time, but thats besides the point.

The point is, entertainment and art are not the same thing yes, but they are deeply connected in a very fundamental way and come from the same root source, that human civilization has long since stopped being driven simply by survival. Thats simply not enough for us anymore.

Why entertainment might not be enough either:

Entertainment is a necessary thing to have of course. Even pets to be taken care of need more then just food, water, and a place to poo. Playing is an important part of a pets life. However few I think would dispute that humans can't be satisfied with such a simple life. Humans need meaning. Humans need art. Or do they? How much on TV and in films can you truly say give you a concept of meaning? Probably more then you might think, but there is a lot of "mindless entertainment" out there that is little more then the equivalent of jigging keys at a baby. Not that that is bad really, it just serves a different function.

Werther or not humans need art or entertainment, probably just depends on the person. If a person has no personal need for meaning, ether because they already came up with a meaning for what they do, or if they simply aren't introspective enough to care, art becomes mostly pointless. We could go into a whole discussion on if people should strive to find meaning or not, but that's not really relevant right now, even though in general, I would say yes.

But even discounting art, the same entertainment can get old and stale. Entertainment is constantly being driven by a need for more. More movies, more music, more games, more books, more everything. And most of it is pretty bad, but it's still worth it to people to do more. But just more of the same isn't enough for people I think, we also want something new, something to innovate and to inspire. If we didn't we would just be satisfied playing pretend with rocks like a small child.

Why the way we entertain ourselves should change:

The thing is, something new and innovative is exactly what the entertainment industry bad at, and they seem to often be even worse at doing art at times. The industry is run in the name of profit not in the name of entertainment or art. It likes safe investments, predictable trends, sequels, genres, and doesn't really care about how good the product is as long as it sells well, and will often meddle in it's own product to get a few extra sales.

Furthermore, entertainment has become way too expensive and addicting. We no longer seem to use it to enrich our lives, but instead let it control our lives. I do think fiction of various forms such as games and films are valuable besides their entertainment value, for artistic merit, or for the spread of cultural memes, but I don't think all our time and money should be spent on them either.

The real problem I guess, is that we live in a culture where entertainment is a big and binding thing, something people flock to in droves and use to define who they are as much as their political or religious beliefs. And the industry pumps more and more money into bigger and bigger things, without really delivering much substance or innovation. Entertainment is to most people no longer something people can do on their own within a reasonable budget.

Things that may help:

First, one thing that is happening already is a number of people are moving away from big budget industry entertainment. People in the "indie" crowd for various media are growing stronger, and entertaining things can be found online for free which are growing in popularity. The internet is full of ways to entertain yourself for nothing or almost nothing. Cell phones often come with free or low cost games, music and other options. The biggest problem is that as these alternate entertainment venues become more popular, the industry will try to get in on it. This has already started to happen on the internet as more and more things become commercial or copied by bigger budget cooperations. Even free ones are often plagued with advertisement and other meddling. In the end, unless we don't stop this trend, we will have changed the medium but not the problem.

There is one way we can attack the industry at it's core, and that is by reforming (or even ignoring) copyright laws. Copyright laws were created to give people an incentive to innovate by guaranteeing a brief time where you could produce the work without competitors. The problem is, that brief time was extended again and again and is used more as a way of controlling something and forcing others to do things the way you want to do it then protecting innovation. If copyright was extremely reduced or demolished, the industry would no longer have an excuse to profit on entertainment as much. Would this mean that no entertainment would be created? No not at all. There are plenty of people who are still willing to create, and plenty of people still willing to donate to have things made. It would simply mean the end of the massive bloated monster that todays entertainment has become.

But really, when it comes right down to it, people don't need to change or break any laws, all they need to do is become more proactive and more choosy about how they entertain yourself. Do you really need to see that new blockbuster movie, get that new album, or play that new game? Can't you write or draw or something? Can't you browse the internet for free things to do? Can't you try dreaming up something, or going somewhere with friends? And I am not saying never spend money or anything either, I am just saying, let's choose how we entertain ourselves more carefully.

Really I guess most people are totally content with the way things are now, but this is just how I feel about it.

Randumb

And now, random thought theater:

Really I think one of the biggest problems with the universe is people think there is a problem with the universe. There is just no real ideal state and people assume something is wrong because it's not "perfect". But the universe works exactly the way it's intended to. It's just a chaotic place and it's us who sort things into "good" and "bad". So really, I wish people would realize there is no "way it is meant to be", and instead focus on the "way it could be".

I had a dream a while ago that I was a friend with a sort of artsy-fartsy musician type. He experimented with different sounds and musical styles and asked me if I had any interesting suggestions for his next song. The answer I came up with is something I would really like to see done. Basically I suggested the next time he came up with a song, to document his creative process and the various revisions from first writing it down or entering it into a computer to each major revision and addition, as well as documenting all the tools, programs, and sound sources he used. I really think that would be neat to see. I woke up shortly after so I didn't really see the result in my dream though.

I wrote a review on the Quest For Glory series the other day, mostly talking about how it avoided a lot of the pitfalls of the adventure game genre and added a interesting new spin on it with roleplaying game stuff. I also wrote a review of One Must Fall a while ago. Both introduce lots of character growth and customization to a otherwise rather uninteresting genre. I guess I just like that sort of thing.

Going way way back, Roger Ebert (who should need no introduction) once made comments about video games not being art (which he has since party taken back). I have already ranted about if they could or not, and came with the conclusion that they could (but not always for the reasons people expect). But thats not what I wanted to comment on. I wanted to comment on the reaction he got. Even though his arguments are misguided (as he himself pointed out later), I think the idea that he is simply "old" or "out of touch" is sort of sad. The fact is, people seem to insert a wedge between generations or social groups. The "old" think games are trash and won't play them, the "young" think older things are likewise crap. In fact this is the exact kind of thing I mentioned before between the government and the people. And it's not that they can't understand one another, they just don't even try. Oh well.

The other day I found a online copy of the Principia Discordia, which is pretty neat because I always wanted to read it, though most of it seems like fluff. It always gets me thinking that maybe I should start my own religion, one that combined my metaphysical ramblings with more of a structured mythology. The point would be not literal truth but to teach people how to construct their own religius ideas, and the consequences of using them. I donno.

Anyway yeah.

The Last President

The President sighed as she packed her things. "It figures the first female president would be the last one" she noted with bitter irony. Still it could have been worse, she was alive and the United States was ending peacefully instead of being torn apart by war.

Looking at The White House one last time, she thought of the long history of the once great nation. The ideals it fought for, at least, were not dead. That pride of being an American... that still was something she could hold on too, even as the nation splintered and broke apart. The White House would still remain, maintained and preserved, if only for it's historical value.

The nation as a whole though, was ending. It was doomed ever since what was known as "The Second Great Depression" had started. The nation had survived one, but this time, as congress bickered and bucked heads about the solution, the number of people who struggled with unemployment and financial trouble grew and grew. A gap was forming between the people and their government. Politicians spend more time advocating their own party's position then helping the problem, and law after law was passed attempting to save the problem that were just ignored or misunderstood. One party wanted to spend more money on programs, the other wanted to cut taxes for the rich and get rid of regulation.

After a while the people at large stopped caring. Then a bold new movement was born, if the nation could not solve their problems, they cried, what use is it? Slowly they began to distance themselves from the government. First, they advocated changing banks to local-run banks. Once people began to follow it, they started to advocate investing only in the community and withhold their money from federal organizations. After a while the more radical members simply stopped paying federal taxes. The movement gained great power in local and state governments who started to give less and less to the federal government. Of course, the federal government panicked and tried to suppress the movement, but this just fueled it's resolve.

The President sighed again. Her campaign platform was one of reform, and of attempting to make a peace between the incressingly independent local wonderments and the federal one. Of course her predecessors were more hard line, almost going as far as causing another civil war. The result was that even more states went rogue, and while the military commanders were all for it, the solders were more loyal to their states then their nation. In the end, there were two choices: Become a police state, or give in. Both were resisted, and she offered voters a third choice. but she had failed. Despite reforms and changes the states were too self sufficient now to rejoin the crumbling union. Though hard negotiations, a compromise was reached where the United States would exist as merely a body of representatives for common issues akin to the United Nations, but each state had it's own taxes and laws independent of any federal control. The army was restructured into a peacekeeping force governed by all states. The congress was preserved as a delegation but it's power was greatly reduced. The supreme court would only relate to lawful between states. As for her office of President, it had no place in this new system.

She accepted this because this was the best solution, but to her, this was the end of the United States of America that was founded all those years ago by colonists from england. The constitution was finally broken and the states would likely drift apart and may even declare war on each other some day. At least she could take solace in the fact that it's ideals were still being upheld, but for how long she wondered?

(I could probably expand this a bit with details and more reasons, but the basic message of this story is clear enough. I just thought I would write a little story about how I think the nation is going to end :P)

The Book of Jobs

Since I started watching c-span regularly, one word has been repeated to death in almost every debate. That word has been "Jobs". When anyone is for something, it's always "it will create jobs". When anyone is opposed to something, it's always "it will destroy jobs". Now as a jobless slacker I may be a bit bias, but I think it's this sort of logic that caused our economic problems in the first place.

The problem here is simple. Blindly creating new jobs doesn't work. In fact I think it makes things worse. Today's job market is a vast bloated over-saturated mess. It's a quantity over quality issue really. The problem isn't that there needs to be new jobs, the problem is the jobs available SUCK. Most jobs are simply tedious unappreciated grunt work that can be done by anyone. The people hiring often could care less about employees because there is so many people willing to do the same thing. And people hoping for better alternatives from the government are bound to be disappointed, because most government created jobs are either temporary, crappy, highly specialized, or some combination of the three.

The thing is, it's not all "The Man"'s fault, or the employer's. It's the worker's own fault a lot too. Because they often insist on letting the system beat them around, on letting the winds of fate decide their employment, and because they work for anyone who hires them. Not everyone has a choice in this, I know. There are times you need to do what you need to do to survive and thats that. But I think the most successful people today are people who make themselves successful.

In this day and age, it is entirely possible, for example, to start a site on the web or write comics, books, games, or music, and make millions of dollars. Why is this? Simple. Today's system rewards those with creative ambition (which I so wish I had more of) more then hard labor. And it's not hard to see why. ANYONE can work at McDonalds. But the big secret is, most anyone can create something people are willing to buy or find some clever other way to make money too, it's just that most don't try. That is not to say working at McDonalds is bad either. Some have no choice. Some people even enjoy it. And those people are exactly who SHOULD work there, not anyone else.

Besides that, another thing that annoys me is the tendency for the government to gave in to corporations because they may go overseas. I say let them. It would just give people the opportunity to make local versions in their place. There is tons of things about the "reliance on foreign oil" and such. But if America wanted, they could just NOT IMPORT OIL. Yes we may not be able to use our cars. Boo-hoo. Take a bike, jackass. Yes electricity may go out. Use a candle for light and ice for refrigerating. There is no reason for this "AMERICA MUST BE NUMBER 1 IN EVERYTHING" mentality. We don't. Besides I am sure we would make new ways of doing things quicker if we didn't have all this shit to stop us. Not that it really matters, people will do what they want and find ways to survive. I am mostly annoyed at the "must have" language. If they simply said "we want" I might not mind so much.

Personally just I think government and the economy should be as far removed as they can be from each other. The government's job has always been in my mind a basic rule of law only. Some sort of other organization should handle public services and economic issues, like a collection of unions/guilds that exist mostly to assure quality of service and worker's rights. The unions of today though are too self-serving so how well that will work I have no idea. I do have recurring dreams about a government/guild system that MOSTLY works. I have been meaning to describe it here in more detail... maybe next time... or not.

Money, Money, Money Makes the World go BOINK!

I was just watching C-SPAN out of boredom, and a republican senator was talking about economics. I was was shocked to find own some of the things he said actually makes sense, but then again in the realm of economics I usually have no problem with republicans. It's how they tend to treat people I hate.

Anyway, most of the talk was about the bank bail outs (which for the record, I thought was a bad idea) and spending, with a little about the IRS (which I similarly think should be abolished). He had some negative remarks about the "new deal", but since I basically live on the welfair system I tend to try and defend that. However, really, I don't see why welfare and such should be a forced system funded by the tax system, I think it might be able to exist as something more like a charity or governmental project funded by other means. I do think he sort of missed the real root of the problem though.

The problem with our economy, as I see it, is the way we treat money. Perhaps even the fact money even exists. Now I am no Communist or Socialist, hell, to me Objectivism makes a lot of sense, though I am more of an Anarchist then a Capitalist, and do believe in people working for a common good, but voluntarily rather then forcefully. The problem isn't capital, it's MONEY, as in paper money, or dollars and cents, and the problem isn't even in money directly, but how we use it.

The basic idea is sound, we trade goods or work for units we can use to obtain other goods or work. The problem comes when money becomes abstract and virtual enough that it isn't attached to any real value for anyone, it just becomes numbers in an account somewhere. The idea of "credit" makes sense if one person decides there is a value in letting people pay later, but when any money payed may also be on credit, simply virtual money that doesn't really exist anywhere, it just becomes pushing imaginary money from one place to another. What this causes is a system where most all of the money we use is simply imaginary numbers in a computer somewhere, and as soon as anyone gets wise to that fact, the whole system becomes valueless to anyone outside it. It doesn't help that most or all of the real money is kept by small groups of people, who have to basically either have to encourage everyone with real money to pump the rest of the economy with real money and hope it makes the rest real enough to make a profit, or cut off ties to the rest of the economy and hoard all of the real money they can.

So what can we do? We can do one of two things if you ask me. Either stop using loans and credit, or stop using money altogether. Either way, there are going to be problems. If we stop using lones and credit, likely or not, a lot of people will simply not be able to live without it. Even the social security and welfare systems can in large part be seen as a form of credit. Not to make money directly, but indirectly to help make more spenders or more people in the economy, with income taxes being a way for them to pay back the credit. This way of thinking makes a system where the economy and the worth of human beings can only be measured in meaningless empty numbers that provide no value to anyone, and puts a burden on everyone for everyone else. It would make more sense to have people directly show their worth to everyone else... even if a human life can have no value by most people, others for whom life IS precious would donate and raise awareness for the downtrodden... hopefully. At the very LEAST, economically savvy people would see the need for more spenders and fund their own welfare system, even if they would have to grumble they need to pay more now.

The other way, is getting rid of money. This would probably become more like a communist and socialist system, and while I have never seen one in the history of man that I liked (China would that one if it would get over it's self and stopped censoring everything and abusing people), I am still willing to grant the idea has SOME good points. I myself am more of an Anarchist, and it's ironic and slightly depressing that, in some ways, our strange method of moving little numbers around inside a computer and just using money as a valueless construct is almost like Anarchy in a way. If we would just give up on the silly idea these numbers actually meant anything, and just changed them as we saw fit, then this would BE Anarchy. Heck, just imagine if there was a system of economics based entirely on perceived value. People would give people things based on their connections and how much they worked for them or others they knew, or used a barter system for goods. In essence a 100% credit system with out any of that troublesome money to bring it down. The depressing part? People who don't provide any value to anyone are simply ignored, and it becomes more a glorified popularity contest. Also, everyone could only rely on their friends or family to provide things, unless a quasi-money system would be agreed on for a community (Fun fact: My town already has or had one for community service), and wouldn't that sort of defeat the point? I guess as long as large banks and lone offices stayed out of it, no. Although it might be possible to do this easier if you used marks independent of all value and had people simply dive you good and bad marks for things in some rule based way, but that would make it so impersonal and therefore people may not go along with it.

Anyway, I for one think most of this bad economy stuff is just that the market is over saturated with people who do the same thing and needs more innovators and people willing to sell to niche markets more then anything else. People are probably MORE likely to get rich following crazy schemes and selling special services.

And if all else fails, you can always try crime. :P

Oh god, here it comes...

Let's talk about politics. Wait, why are you running away non-existent audience? It won't be that bad, I promise. Really. This is in no way an ironic statement about politics in general. But seriously stay. Your my imaginary audience, the least you could do is pay attention sometimes.

Anyway, Here is the thing. In regards to politics, it seems like people either have strong biased opinions or ignore it altogether.

Not to long ago, I ran across a video that, along with other things I found questionable (if games are toys, then movies and fiction are also toys, but thats another rant for another day), insists that "gamers" learn more about things other then games. Fair enough. I myself take quite a interest in history, science, and literature myself, and I find games just another aspect of culture in that aspect. Though I think his list of "YOU NEED TO READ THIS" authors are a bit long and subjective, but whatever.

But the thing related to politics was his insistence that people know who the members of the Senate and the Supreme Court are. First of all, that only applies to Americans, but thats besides the point, though it does show American bias, which to be fair, I will also show though out this rant, simply because it's the system I am most familiar with, and, because I live there, is my chief concern. I hope others can draw parallels for other systems though. Anyway mostly my problem is, NO ONE really knows who is in Senate and the Supreme Court! Well I am sure some people do, but anyway, most people don't. And I don't think it's simply because people are ignorant. They don't care.

And why should they? Nowadays the Senate and the Supreme Court seem to be treated in the media and in people's eyes as some sort of celebrity cult rather then an actual ruling body. The identities of the ruling bodies are unimportant. In fact it seems more and more like even their beliefs and views are unimportant, outside of a few mavericks which stand out by having unusual polices or personality. The only reason why people care about The President is because he is THE President, a person who stands out for being a singular unit in a crowd and personally uses or misuses his power directly.

When people do get into politics, it is usually because of one or more "issues" or "causes" they care about. Otherwise, they tend to ignore it. It is seen by some as little more then a game, a pointless exercise of trickery and bluff. Politicians seem to make laws, unmake laws, argue about them, and generally fight and whine within their own closed domed halls without paying much attention to the outside world. That the police actually take them seriously every once and a while can be seen by some as a mild annoyance at best and a great injustice at worst. No where is this more obvious then in the realm of copyright. Why is piracy so common with music and software? Simply because no one really cares what swarms of lawyers and politicians say. And the moment anything is actually enforced people cry that things are becoming a police state.

Now what would happen if this apathy to law and politics were to continue? The "great" American Government would become hopelessly defused to the point where it becomes a non-entity. Now frankly, I think this could be a good thing, if handled right. I am more or less an anarchist. Now Anarchy is a very diverse political movement with many branches and beliefs so I could clarify: I don't believe in "no rules", I believe in "no government", or at least "no federal government". For example, a system of several more or less independent citystates or small alliances. I think when ever it is we get into space, colonies will naturally be like this, more like today's chartered cites on the ocean. But if it is not handled right, as it is likely not to be, it will collapse into chaos and ruin. Or the backlash from the diffusion will prompt America to become a police state. Which will then collapse into chaos and ruin. Because all police states do.

So in order to prevent that, we have to find the problem with American politics. And we all already know what it is. Parties. But it's deeper then that. It's the whole way people take sides. For example, the other day I was talking to my father. My father is an environmentalist. His big problem is that big business types seem to refuse to find alternative ways to do things for the sake of profit and therefore are ruining the environment. I don't see it that way. The way I see it, it's a matter of pride and sides. For the most part. environmentalists take one side, and big business take another. They refuse to compromise or see any other side if the issue ever. Thats simply it. People pick an issue, pick the side they want, argue until they win or can't anymore. But then the groups they form become the issue. It's no longer about solving the problem, it's about their group winning. Of course, some people do try to reach out from between party lines so to speak but they are just ignored for the most part by the other party who are still treating it as a team-vs-team game.

On that note, here is some advice for all the political activists out there: Join the "other side". Democrats, become republicans. Republicans, become democrats. And so on. And I am not just saying to try and destabilize the enemy from within, no. Pick up their causes. If you feel even one of them is a good cause, go for it. The goal is to bring new ideas and new ways of looking at things into parties that are stagnant with people who refuse to accept anything the other says. I think this in particular needs to be done with republicans. They need help. Some of them are openly bigoted or reactionary and the rest are good people but not willing to oust their peers. They need more inside people willing to do just that. It's not that republicans are bad people, they just so caught up in their fight on democrats they are unwilling to tolerate any disloyalty no matter what.

Law and Disorder

So my favorite pr0n site, known as rule34 has been getting a bit paranoid about government cracking down on "lolicon". One example they give is this case which is, to me, a prime example of whats wrong with the whole thing. The problem being, art of any kind being prosecuted for being "obscene" or "wrong" without any attempt at justification. And once again the Protect Act lets them get away with it. See, legal action has nothing to do with right and wrong anymore, or even law, just how much someone can push to have someone convicted.

Also I have to say, as someone who enjoys lolicon for various reasons, I am a little offended everyone who does is assumed to go out and abuse random kids. I think people have completely missed the point on this whole issue. Child Abuse is wrong because a child gets hurt. Child Porn is wrong because children get exploited. These are clear cut well defined moral reasons. But drawings? Because someone might want to maybe abuse someone? Sorry not gonna cut it.

On the other hand, I rather dislike rape and forced situations in any context, particularly with children, and I do think people who enjoy such are a bit messed up in the head... but it's still not a moral issue until someone is actually hurt.