The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[slingblade]

Having said that, I'm no expert. But I don't think that someone who has personally experienced traumatic abuse automatically get a veto or the final word on this topic, because your experience may not be the universal one, and may not be comparable to adult-child sexual contact grounded in non-Western cultures.

Oh, blah, blah, frikkin armchair moralizer blah.

You don't get to tell me crap like this, Dave. I never asked for the final word, and I have no idea what the fark I'd want "veto" power for. Do you think I'm telling you to quit talking about the topic? Well, I'm certainly not.

If I had been raised in a culture which allows old men to bang little girls, would what happened to me have seemed more natural, and therefore less frightening, less painful, and less traumatizing? How on earth am I to know? How would most of us know? Have there been studies? Comparative studies?

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?

I know why. I know none of you want to hear why, so I'll keep it to myself.

Just be glad you don't know. And please try to keep your own kids from discovering what you don't know in the same way I did. Okay?

Veto power. The very idea.

 

[The Atheist]

This seems to me to be a giveaway that you had no evidence at all, since you have not referred to anything but the links I gave you. Thank you for supporting that hypothesis.

Kevin, my little Tasmanian pal, let me just put you straight on something, because there are several points you keep missing. (Hardly surprising given the amount of time you're spending pushing your little hobby horse)

First off, I never claimed to have evidence, the evidence which exists is flawed (see below), and I don't need any. I am not arguing for sex with kids to be legalised - YOU are. My position is that current laws are close enough to the desired mark to leave alone. If I'm not arguing for change, I hardly need evidence to support my position.

Secondly, even in this very thread, there is anecdotal evidence that child molestation leaves its mark. Or are you avoiding posts from people who have actually experienced the other side of child abuse - the victims?

Now, I realise that you're sitting there in Tazzy, in your own, strange little world, trying desperately to shift the emphasis of our conversation from me asking why you're promoting sex with children onto why I have no evidence, but, unfortunately, as you suggested right at the start of your odd little treatises, sex and children is a subject where mob rule, well, rules!

The bad news for you is that the mob which makes and enforces the rules on this one is the parents. Not NAMBLA, not you, but the PARENTS. (you do realise that under Oz and NZ law, NAMBLA would be an illegal organisation, don't you?)

The problems with your "evidence", which you've never even given a thought to, is that it's completely flawed. How many women didn't volunteer for the study? You clearly don't even realise that there are people out there who would rather die than admit that they were sexually abused as children. Just because a study of those who are able to talk about it suggests something, it doesn't make it right. The ones who were happy to particpate in those studies had not been harmed by the abuse - maybe that's why they were happy to complete the survey.

Comments like this are just you talking through a hole in your rear end:

The conclusion is fairly obvious.

From that, I would say that you have no idea what "obvious" means as the data is clearly flawed.

What a sad and restrictive little world you would have us live in - where everything is black and white and based on incomplete evidence. In child abuse, there can never be accurate statistics unless every single instance of child abuse is reported and investigated, and the victims re-assessed at adulthood.

Another comment you make actually applies far better to you than me:

Do you see now how stupid your position is? Especially given the humiliating lack of evidence you have on your side?

The humiliation here is all one way - the way of he who would rely on flimsy, flawed "evidence" to back a claim that sex with children is a good thing. Your post's feeble attempt to claim a moral high ground has failed miserably. Partly because your "evidence" is meaningless, but mostly because the moral high ground belongs to the parents. If you don't like that, then that makes me very happy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You have been beaten black and blue here. You continue to spew forth crap in the face of real-life victims and yet you'll still come back and make an even bigger fool of yourself by trying to discredit my position again. [and fail again]

Tell you what, my little "pseudo-intellectual, 110 pounder" (gosh, I'd like to know whether that's right; I strongly suspect so!). You're SO determined to promote your lowering of the age of consent; instead of bleating at us and getting metaphorically beaten, go and start a one-man [?] protest outside the Launceston Workingmen's Club or maybe the Hobart RSL. They're good, honest people, see how they feel about it. Start a petition at your local shopping centre. I do recommend that if you approach people in real life to discuss your plan that you will either need to be Ato Boldon or Steven Segal to get away alive. Lots of people in that big, real world aren't quite as refined as we forumites are.

You're living in gaga land, Kevin. I suggest you just quiety steal away during the night and leave this thread alone before you drop yourself even further in it.

Bye now!

 

[Roadtoad]

Oh, blah, blah, frikkin armchair moralizer blah.

You don't get to tell me crap like this, Dave. I never asked for the final word, and I have no idea what the fark I'd want "veto" power for. Do you think I'm telling you to quit talking about the topic? Well, I'm certainly not.

If I had been raised in a culture which allows old men to bang little girls, would what happened to me have seemed more natural, and therefore less frightening, less painful, and less traumatizing? How on earth am I to know? How would most of us know? Have there been studies? Comparative studies?

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?

I know why. I know none of you want to hear why, so I'll keep it to myself.

Just be glad you don't know. And please try to keep your own kids from discovering what you don't know in the same way I did. Okay?

Veto power. The very idea.

I'm there myself, Sling.

First, I want to see a copy of the study that Kevin Lowe cited, regarding the victims of child molestation. That might help me to understand a lot of what's happened to me in the past decades.

Second, I'm pretty pissed off that Kevin's been accused falsely as he has. I don't seem him as being "pro-porn," or being a front man for NAMBLA. It's slanderous and false. He is far more liberal than I am on this issue, but I've yet to see him supporting the abuse of children.

That there are cultural norms that are at variance with what we do here in the U.S. is to be expected. When my sons were small, there was no way in Hell I'd be kissing their penises. You simply didn't do that to your children. Then again, I'm a California native.

There is room for debate within this topic, but the critical thing to remember is "Is there harm?" If the answer, in any way, shape, or form is "yes," you have an obligation to stop.

Sure, sex is pleasurable. I enjoy sex. It sometimes drives my wife a little crazy with how much I enjoy sex. She doesn't understand why I think she's absolutely gorgeous. (Sorry, girls. Some of us like a more Rubenesque lady.)

There's no way in Hell I'd touch a child. I know why you don't do that. I don't ever want my grandson to know why you shouldn't do that. Unfortunately, like me, my eldest son knows why you don't do that.

Oh, and just so you know: They let the pr*** who did my son off with probation.

 

[Dave1001]

Oh, blah, blah, frikkin armchair moralizer blah.

You don't get to tell me crap like this, Dave. I never asked for the final word, and I have no idea what the fark I'd want "veto" power for. Do you think I'm telling you to quit talking about the topic? Well, I'm certainly not.

If I had been raised in a culture which allows old men to bang little girls, would what happened to me have seemed more natural, and therefore less frightening, less painful, and less traumatizing? How on earth am I to know? How would most of us know? Have there been studies? Comparative studies?

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?

I know why. I know none of you want to hear why, so I'll keep it to myself.

Just be glad you don't know. And please try to keep your own kids from discovering what you don't know in the same way I did. Okay?

Veto power. The very idea.

That wasn't directed at you, that was directed at Gurdur who implied that I ignored your personal experience as related in this thread. I didn't ignore your experience, I just don't see how we can generalize from your personal experience to all the various non-western cultures that have sexual contact between members of the family network and children as part of normal socialization. Policy should be based on what the best science tells us, particularly when it comes to actively trying to change cultures that are not our own, outside of the sovereign territory of our nation.

 

[Dave1001]

I'm there myself, Sling.

First, I want to see a copy of the study that Kevin Lowe cited, regarding the victims of child molestation.

I'd like to see that study too. I first heard it referenced by Bill Maher, and now by Kevin_Lowe in this thread. I think it would be illuminating to the discussion.

 

[The Atheist]

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?

Sling.

That's a horrible post. Horrible because you've managed to convey the disgust you quite rightly feel at a horrible crime perpetrated on you.

And it's a magnificent post, because you've managed to encapsulate all that's wrong with Dave and Kevin's position without losing your cool. I'm sure that, in your position, I'd be after them with a 12-gauge!

I salute your bravery, your honesty and your obvious compassion.

 

[Dave1001]

I'm sure that, in your position, I'd be after them with a 12-gauge!

When you snap, please go through your list of people in reverse alphabetical order.

 

[The Atheist]

Now you are mixing things up again. Should pictures of people below the age of 18 and below a certian stage of dress be illegal? You clearly think that all the naked infant in bath pictures are porn, and then clearly americas funniest home videos should be arrested as they have shown such videos on broadcast media.

YOu are taking nude pictures in an absense of sexual content to be sexual. THat is showing very much your own thoughts on the subject.

That OK I find it highly likely that he fits his own defintion of pedophile. As I find it highly likely that he engaged with what he conciders pornographic acts with his children. Namely bathing them when they where young.

Actually, if you're going to make a strawman, you can take my name off it.

I did NOT say it was pornography, I said I didn't want to look at the pictures. I did NOT make any claim that they were in any way sexual, either, mostly because pics of kids being bathed aren't.

Try reading next time.

 

[The Atheist]

When you snap, please go through your list of people in reverse alphabetical order.

I always start at "D".

 

[Dave1001]

I always start at "D".

Well, some people* say these guys are pedophiles and members of NAMBLA

http://k-1.azplayers.com/fighter/D


*Note: I am not one of those people though!

 

[Darat]

There is no reason to make vile accusations about other Members - address the arguments and/or claims or do not post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[slingblade]

I'm there myself, Sling.

First, I want to see a copy of the study that Kevin Lowe cited, regarding the victims of child molestation. That might help me to understand a lot of what's happened to me in the past decades.

I might like to see it too, but not just now. I'm working on that book, you see, and it's dredged up a whole lot of garbage I'd forgotten, or had refused to look at.

I used to tell people (mostly therapists) that the funny thing about my multiple molestations was that I never felt guilty about it. After all, they didn't hurt me, so why should I feel guilty? Once I started writing, however, I suddenly started remembering just how much it did hurt. A lot of it was painful. And yes, parts of it were pleasurable. Absolutely. Some of them knew what they were doing, and they did it well.

I still didn't want them to do it, and I still couldn't make them stop.

Second, I'm pretty pissed off that Kevin's been accused falsely as he has. I don't seem him as being "pro-porn," or being a front man for NAMBLA. It's slanderous and false. He is far more liberal than I am on this issue, but I've yet to see him supporting the abuse of children.

My comments were directed at Dave. I gave up trying to talk to Kevin in the last "sex with kids" thread. He and DD simply could not understand my argument that some things in life are meant for adults or near-adults. Period.

You know, a decent doctor will tell you, usually in reference to medication doses, that children are not just small adults. I sometimes wonder how many people who discuss this topic on the pro-kid-pleasure side ever realize that? We are not talking about midgets. Children are not small adults.

This whole discussion may one day soon be moot, though. I hear that for girls, 12 is the new 15. Puberty in some populations in the US is being pushed back to 8 years old.

That there are cultural norms that are at variance with what we do here in the U.S. is to be expected. When my sons were small, there was no way in Hell I'd be kissing their penises. You simply didn't do that to your children. Then again, I'm a California native.

There is room for debate within this topic, but the critical thing to remember is "Is there harm?" If the answer, in any way, shape, or form is "yes," you have an obligation to stop.

I had to force myself to change my own sons' diapers, at first. I was very uncomfortable about touching them "down there." My elder son suffered from blistering diaper rash a lot, because I changed him too fast, and didn't clean him up well.

Furthermore, it was only just now, this very second, that I've realized that's what I'd done, and why his little butt was always raw and weeping. Oh, goodie. Something else to feel guilty about that I can't change now, but can only "get over."

How's that for harm?

Sure, sex is pleasurable. I enjoy sex. It sometimes drives my wife a little crazy with how much I enjoy sex. She doesn't understand why I think she's absolutely gorgeous. (Sorry, girls. Some of us like a more Rubenesque lady.)

We Rubenesque ladies thank you for it, too.

There's no way in Hell I'd touch a child. I know why you don't do that. I don't ever want my grandson to know why you shouldn't do that. Unfortunately, like me, my eldest son knows why you don't do that.

Oh, and just so you know: They let the pr*** who did my son off with probation.

I'm really sorry about that, RT. I'm really sorry about all of it; what happened to you, and to him. And to my stepson, with his own cousins. And to other kids I know.

Look, I'm not stupid. I know there is something to this, some kind of biological impetus or imperative. A lot more people, male and female, are sexually attracted to kids than maybe we would like to think. Anecdotally, I know from talking to lots of guys that often when they see a newly-pubescent girl, wearing tight shorts and a tighter blouse, they do feel just a moment's curiosity, a moment's attraction. She's fresh, she's nubile, she's firm and pretty and full of energy. This attraction is not uncommon, and so it can't really be perverted.

It's the ones who feel the same attraction when they look at a 4-year-old that disturb me.

 

[The Atheist]

Second, I'm pretty pissed off that Kevin's been accused falsely as he has. I don't seem him as being "pro-porn," or being a front man for NAMBLA. It's slanderous and false. He is far more liberal than I am on this issue, but I've yet to see him supporting the abuse of children.

There is room for debate within this topic, but the critical thing to remember is "Is there harm?" If the answer, in any way, shape, or form is "yes," you have an obligation to stop.

Oh, and just so you know: They let the pr*** who did my son off with probation.

Road, I'd like to respond to this. You may have gathered that I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to clarify my stance.

At no stage have I accused Kevin of being a paedophile, or front-man for NAMBLA. I have asked consistently why he is promoting a change to our laws which would suit a paedophile agenda. I copied 11 of his comments to the effect that consensual sex with sexually mature children is ok, here

Children can be sexually mature at age 10, or even under. Now, I don't believe that while a 10 year old might be able to say "yes" to sex with a grown man, that she has any idea what's happening and accordingly, I'd like to keep that kind of activity illegal. Would you consider an adult male having sex with a 10 year old to be abuse? I certainly do, and Kevin is suggesting that it's ok.

If Kevin had suggested an age limit of 14 or 15, I probably would have had no beef with his position. He hasn't done that. He has consistently argued that "no harm is done". That is impossible to show. As I suggested, the evidence can only ever be flawed, unless every instance of "consensual sex" is counted, and they never will be.

Kevin has apparently reported my posts, so if I have actually transgressed into accusation, then no doubt I will be told officially about it.

I don't think Kevin's a paedophile, either, as it happens. I just wonder why a sane person would want to pursue such a strange agenda, and one which goes against the grain of how most people think.

If anything, the story of your son's abuser being let off with probation shows that we possibly aren't quite tough enough on the filth which perptrates these crimes.

 

[varwoche]

I am not arguing for sex with kids to be legalised - YOU [Kevin_Lowe] are. My position is that current laws are close enough to the desired mark to leave alone. If I'm not arguing for change, I hardly need evidence to support my position.

In addition to which: (1) A young child is unable to provide informed consent, (2) STDs and pregnancy can result, seeing as adult+child sex does not occur in a lab, and (3) societal context is part of the equation, like it or not.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, there you go, Darat's posted while I was typing.

I note that I have NOT received a warning. Given that I have about 30 since I've been a member, I think I would have had another if I had actually crossed the line.

 

[slingblade]

In addition to which: (1) A young child is unable to provide informed consent, (2) STDs and pregnancy can result, seeing as adult+child sex does not occur in a lab, and (3) societal context is part of the equation, like it or not.

Those arguments were presented in the last kid-sex thread. They made no appreciable difference. Good on ya for trying, though.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Um...okay (without making comment on this pro or con and possibly retreating even getting in on this thread).

Are we to say that the discussion is now focusing on the following contention:

Having an adult approach a child (of age where basic understanding and communications is possible...like above 6 or 7) and initiate sexual contact in a non-forceful manner, for example "Do you know what the difference between boys and girls is? wana see?" or "lets pretend we're doctors" or some other means by which the child is given the option to consent or not to consent. And continuing with the sexual contact, if the child is willing to do so IS/IS NOT harmful, unethical and worthy of being prohibited by law.

That's pretty much what we're dealing with here? And would anyone care to say what side of the issue they fall on.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

oh damn...I really wish I had used my 1000th post in some other thread. I shoulda paid attention to my post count

 

[Roadtoad]

It IS harmful. A child, regardless of how well "informed" they are, is not capable of understanding what he/she is getting into.

 

[Gurdur]

That wasn't directed at you, that was directed at Gurdur who implied that I ignored your personal experience as related in this thread.

You mean being dismissive about someone else's experience is somehow not as bad if you're being dismissive about it to someone else again?

Policy should be based on what the best science tells us, particularly when it comes to actively trying to change cultures that are not our own, outside of the sovereign territory of our nation.

Error.
We are talking value judgments here all the way in. Science has zero to say about value judgments.