Paedophilia

[Skeptic]

You DO know that this is illegal, right? [/B]

Yes, but somehow I don't see any of them complaining.

 

[Brian]

She told me about how she painted the door to her bedroom so it would make a noise when it opened. One day she came home from school to find her father stripping the paint off the door, gleefully announcing that it would fix the problem of it making the noise. After being abused a few more times, she painted the door again.

Guy like that should just be shot. He's of no use to anybody including himself.
People who look at fake child porn, well ok, but keep it to yourself. I think it's best to demonize it. Keep people afraid to act on these impulses, let them know the rest of us think it's wrong and that we hate them. I don't think anyone who rapes a kid should ever be free again, even on the first offense.
NAMBLA needs a collective kick in the nuts. We shouldn't let anyone legitimize this or make excuses.

 

[subgenius]

I resent pedophila being treated as a disease. Like that somehow removes culpabilty from the perp. "Im sick" is such a cop out.

We all have urges and impulses that we have to keep under control. Why throughout the day I resist the urge to punch people in the face! If you like little kids, too bad for you. Try wacking off to Toys R Us catalog to deal with your urge. Just dont expect me to excuse a perp molesting some kid.

Just cause ya cant get laid doesnt give you the ok to rape.

Not only admittedly, and proudly, doesn't read links, but doesn't understand the difference between understanding and solving cause, and absolving from responsibility.
Like "Just Say No", not a solution, just a simple minded, simplistic short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Paedophilia

NAMBLA needs a collective kick in the nuts. We shouldn't let anyone legitimize this or make excuses.

Just remember, though, that the line between "boy" and "man" is to some extent arbitrary and culturally determined. As is the line between "girl" and "woman". Perfectly civilised states differ on whether you are old enough to give sexual consent at 14, 16, 18 or 21. Not to mention on whether queer, kinky and/or homosexual acts should be treated differently.

If there was solid, cross-cultural data to show that it was Objectively Bad for people to have consensual sex at 14, or 16, or 18, then I could be talked into accepting such lines as moral absolutes. But there is no such data. So if some outfit like NAMBLA says "It should not be illegal for fourteen year old boys to have consensual sexual relations", well, they might be right and they might be wrong but you can't prove it either way.

For fun, try substituting "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen" and so on into that sentence and see when you personally start agreeing with it.

I believe the well-known columnist Dan Savage is quite up-front about the fact that he was having sex with a much older man at 15 (from memory) and he has nothing but happy memories of the affair.

So kicking NAMBLA in the nuts might be unreasonable. Then again it might not. I had a look at their web site, which is something I would not be keen to do from work, and I could not find any kind of FAQ or official policy statement on what they think the relevant laws should be. Just a lot of stuff vaguely in favour of legalising sex with underage boys, including pictures and references to boys who were or looked very underage. So who knows what their real agenda is? They certainly don't make it clear, which does invite suspicion.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

A few years ago a woman parked her car in a mall parking lot. She recalls parking next to a white van. When she returned to her car the adjacent spot was empty except for a photograph. The photograph was of two children tied up and in a room. The FBI were able to identify one of the children as a known abduction victim, but at the time did not know who the other one was. In my mind, I do not believe that the photo was dropped by accident. I believe that it was placed there by a sadist to cause further anguish, if only to the person who found the photo. I saw the story 2 years ago (on A&E or Discovery) and I still consider it to be one of those things that I can't 'unsee'.

And some people want pedophiles treated as if they are ill and can be rehabilitated. No, just throw away the key and I'll let my taxes pick up the tab.

Most cities have an on-line database of sex-offenders. Type in your address and see what comes up.

 

[Brian]

Re: Re: Re: Paedophilia

Just remember, though, that the line between "boy" and "man" is to some extent arbitrary and culturally determined. As is the line between "girl" and "woman". Perfectly civilised states differ on whether you are old enough to give sexual consent at 14, 16, 18 or 21. Not to mention on whether queer, kinky and/or homosexual acts should be treated differently.

If there was solid, cross-cultural data to show that it was Objectively Bad for people to have consensual sex at 14, or 16, or 18, then I could be talked into accepting such lines as moral absolutes. But there is no such data. So if some outfit like NAMBLA says "It should not be illegal for fourteen year old boys to have consensual sexual relations", well, they might be right and they might be wrong but you can't prove it either way.

For fun, try substituting "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen" and so on into that sentence and see when you personally start agreeing with it.

I believe the well-known columnist Dan Savage is quite up-front about the fact that he was having sex with a much older man at 15 (from memory) and he has nothing but happy memories of the affair.

So kicking NAMBLA in the nuts might be unreasonable. Then again it might not. I had a look at their web site, which is something I would not be keen to do from work, and I could not find any kind of FAQ or official policy statement on what they think the relevant laws should be. Just a lot of stuff vaguely in favour of legalising sex with underage boys, including pictures and references to boys who were or looked very underage. So who knows what their real agenda is? They certainly don't make it clear, which does invite suspicion.

What you say is very reasonable. It's hard to draw a line. I still think we should err on the side of caution and demonize NAMBLA, make them feel like hated freaks. If we don't push the line in one direction, they'll push it in the other. I'm sure there are people out there who think having sex with an 8 year old is a perfectly natural thing.
Now that I think of it I guess I am off topic. We're talking about age of consent, the issue is rape.

 

[WildCat]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by WildCat

I was very uncomfortable with this verdict. He hadn't harmed any children, he hadn't corrupted anyone else, he had only created a private piece of "art" with the intention of keeping it to himself. Was the verdict fair, or was this too close to policing someone's thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it wasn't posted by me! That was Rolfe.

Using the "quote" button will keep these mistakes from happening.

 

[nightwind]

Virus posting

TillEulenspiegel, I noticed that in your posts, you indicated that you actively post virus, to the internet, via Kazaa, etc.

Are you currently engaged in this? And what virus are you currently posting?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by WildCat

No, it wasn't posted by me! That was Rolfe.

Using the "quote" button will keep these mistakes from happening.

Oops, remembering the wrong cat avatar. Well, anyway, Rolfe, I thought it was a good point.

 

[Segnosaur]

The problem with a straight "adult porn v. kiddy porn" analogy is that not all the acts depicted in the adult porn are illegal. Any sexual activity involving a child is illegal, so a straighter analogy would be to consider porn depicting rape. In fact, if we are talking about non CGI porn it would have to be scenes of actual, not just simulated rape.

This isn't 100% correct... In many areas, the age of consent for sex is younger than the age that they can be in pr0n. So, in theory a person could legally 'date' a 16 year old, and it wouldn't be 'rape'. (As long as no pictures were taken.)

 

[Andonyx]

I also enjoy trolling for scum by posting virus scripts with salacious names on BBS's and Kazza sites. This has become more difficult to accomplish because the use of anonymous proxy servers and firewalls.

I will tell you this I would be the first person in line , and I mean this to the core of my being, To castrate these sick f**ks with a carpet knife if given the opportunity.

Ironic.

 

[Suddenly]

Not only admittedly, and proudly, doesn't read links, but doesn't understand the difference between understanding and solving cause, and absolving from responsibility.
Like "Just Say No", not a solution, just a simple minded, simplistic short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

Well put.

Maybe I should be a little more direct about this sort of thing.

Demonizing pedophiles is shown over and over to be worthless in discouraging the behaviour. Be it scorn from society or likely maltreatment in prison or threatened torture and mutilation. Just doesn't work.


What it does do is give people a reason to do two things. First is denial that there is a problem. Those that would perhaps seek treatment or measures to prevent future occurances will not. They just seethe, promise themselves not to do it again, and like true addicts line up more victims, or continue to victimize those close. End result: more abuse.

The second thing it does is give reason for those engaged in such behaviour to take drastic steps from being caught. Leave no witnesses. End result: random kidnappings and dead children.

Of course, this does not describe all possible cases. When dealing with persons with impuse control problems who also have for some reason a sexual obsession with small children, both which can have organic causes, the circumstances above are very, very relevent.

Thus, one could argue that the hard line "all pedophiles are evil that should be tortured and killed" attitude brings about more innocent victims, not less. Not that this attitude is the main or even proximate cause of the additional abuse, but a case that it is a but/for cause can be made. Whether culpability should also apply is less clear.

Now, this isn't absolving these persons, nor is it apologizing for their behaviour. It is simply pointing out how simply treating these people as "evil" rather than trying to understand the root cause can have bad effects. We make ourselves perhaps feel better by aggressively being vengeful and punishing these people for their hideous acts, and the price of this theraputic vengence is the added suffering of those we claim to want to protect.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

You DO know that this is illegal, right? [/B]

That was a typo, should have read " I WOULD enjoy..." the dropped word changes the meaning significantly and since as you pointed out that it is illegal I would never engage in such risky behavior. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Andonyx]

That was a typo, should have read " I WOULD enjoy..." the dropped word changes the meaning significantly and since as you pointed out that it is illegal I would never engage in such risky behavior. Sorry for the confusion.

But you are aware of the change in difficulty due to proxy-servers and firewalls...

That's a lot of knowledge for this imagined behavior.

 

[Cecil]

Re: Re: Paedophilia

NAMBLA needs a collective kick in the nuts. We shouldn't let anyone legitimize this or make excuses.

What do you have against the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes?

Earthborn, nice post. I agree that finer distinctions need to be made between "pedophile" and "not". For example, I tend to believe that Michael Jackson is a member of the first category. This makes it difficult for me to answer people when they ask, "Guilty or not?".

 

[wollery]

There was a case in Dundee relevant to this last point. A man had a perfectly innocent picture of some children playing. He put it on his computer and altered it with an imaging package to become an indecent paedophile picture. He never showed it to anyone, and he never put it on the Internet. If he had accessed any kiddie porn on the Internet, this was not mentioned in the press reports.

However, his wife was working on the computer one day, and found the image. She called the cops. (It wasn't clear to me whether she realised it was "art-work" and not a picture of a real event when she did this.) The man was charged.

He was found guilty and the sheriff was very critical of him as a serious offender. He was sent to prison for (I think) two years.

I was very uncomfortable with this verdict. He hadn't harmed any children, he hadn't corrupted anyone else, he had only created a private piece of "art" with the intention of keeping it to himself. Was the verdict fair, or was this too close to policing someone's thoughts?

Rolfe.

As I understand the law from a documentary I saw (about a year ago) any image is considered illegal unless it is completely devoid of any elements from an actual photograph. This means that in the case of a computer image all of the pixels would have to be altered for the image to be considered legal.

Whilst I agree to a certain extent that this is bordering on thought policing you have to draw a line somewhere between what is and isn't legal. So the question then becomes how much alteration is allowable, and how private the storage facilities are. This guy altered some, but not all of the photo, so we can probably assume that the faces of the children were still recognizable, and stored it on a computer to which at least one other person had access.