I especially had constructively criticized him to change his "Pervy Ideas
Page",on which a concept for a modified variant of one of these inflatable
PVC kid-trampolines is shown,which he called "The PVC-Prison".

Mr. Blowup replied:

> I went to
> some trouble to retouch the original image to remove the children, and
> the rest of the text makes it clear that the item is modified to produce
> a plaything for people such as myself who enjoy confinement in a
> structure made of a material we find exciting. It is you who suggests
> this involves some abuse of children...

To help him,I retouched his picture in quite good quality,attached it to my
e-mail and tried to explain:

>I have edited that jumpolene picture for you to remove the children from it.
>It took me 3 hours to get it done using the quite arkward "Micrografx Picture
>Publisher 7" program.(But I wanted to learn to edit pictures with it anyway.)
>
>The original picture itself looks indeed completely harmless and I did not
>intend to accuse you to be a children raper or similar.
>
>But you must know that many cases got known,in those certain travel agencies
>published advertisements for travels to Bankog those featured pictures and
>praising descriptions of Bankog's (legal)erotic nightlife/nightclubs/brothels
>etc. and straightly next to this were placed other pictures showing naked or
>semi-naked small children playing on a beach.Although the contents of these
>ads was kept completely legal,they were designed for making additional profits
>with attracting sex tourists having interest in children-prostitution.There-
>fore in TV etc. were broad campaigns to boycott such travel agencies to stop
>them benefitting from the sufferance of Bankog's raped children.
>
>
>I did not accuse you to have such intensions.But your "Pervy Ideas Page" in
>its actual form fits scaringly well into the special design scheme of the men-
>tioned type of travel prospects those were invoked to be boycotted everywhere.
>
>The children picture itself and the contents of the page looks in no way su-
>spicious.
>
>Only the combination that
>
> 1. on a eroticism related site
> 2. is displayed a picture featuring small children
> 3. on a subpage containing the name "pervy" in its title,
> 4. that uses the De Sade term "prison" in an unusual way
>
>makes this scaring association easily arise.
>
>Without point 3. and 4. the situation would look completely harmless,therefore
>I seriously recommended you to change the terms used on this page,because in
>this context they easily associate to be a kind of enshrouding insider double-
>talk for doing criminal things.
>
>But when you(by which reasons ever) don't want to change these detering scene
>terms on this page,I have made this edited version of the jumpolene picture
>for you that doesn't contain the children anymore,to make it possible for you
>to show to the world at least that there is no hidden,unhumane message behind
>the words on your "Pervy Ideas Page".I hope that the quality of my picture can
>satisfy your need.
...

But he just complained that I would be a kind of sex-demonizing religious mo-
ralist and wrote:

>I will not change a single word or picture until I receive
>messages from elsewhere that suggest I am doing something wrong or
>immoral.

I explained:

>I guess that most of the people those get scared by the misleading "Pervy
>Ideas Page" just leave your site immediately,but will never come in mind to
>contact you,because they fear to possibly get put onto a "black list" and then
>get in trouble/get threatened by organized crime organisations those make
>money with children pornography or -prostitution. (I definetely don't think
>you to have anything to do with such crimes,but the associations arised by the
>page easily inducts such behavior,because it resembles to the mentioned Bankog
>travel prospects.) I can't force you to change anything - I can only give you
>the advice to do this.
...

I also had told him multiple times that he should explain more about the very
unusual looking objects on his site,but he just replied:

> People looking at
> the pictures can draw their own conclusions, and have the freedom to
> email me for further information if they wish (many do).Once again you
> say my site is deterring for unknowing people- I'm sorry, but if those
> people really are prejudiced against what they see, it's unlikely that
> anything I say or do will change their mind.

I tried to convince him:

>But the body bag stuff looks really like a device for shackling and possibly
>choking people in dagerous sado-maso games.Though people need to know that
>one can like to put oneself into it simply to realize an alterated state of
>mind with e.g. a great feeling of psychological security and harmony.People
>just simply need to know where it is for.

But he ignored my arguments and complained I would just be one of these reli-
gious moralist those grumble that sex-related sites would ethically currupt
the mankind.I attempted to explain many times that I don't demonize sex,told
him about the understanding of sexuality in tantra(His wife had written that
she had experience with it.),that I enjoy most pictures of his site and that
I am in no way any overzealous porno-hunter,but this guy just ignored this,
continued complaining that I would be a kind of religous misleaded moralist
and refused to reply any later e-mails by me.
 

Though everybody who intends to seriously discuss with Mr.Blowup shall be
warned not to expect an answer - this guy can react very pigheadedly when he
gets criticized and then doesn't care about any logical arguments anymore.

Aerial
-