Your View on Child Porn

[Furore]

I personally don't think they should be banning the stuff that doesn't actually involve real people. If you give pedophiles an outlet they can express themselves in without children being harmed, won't that possibly mean more are preoccupied from potentially becoming child molestors?

If they have no outlets, I'd think that might actually drive some to molest a real child or pursue real life child pornography which in turn would increase demand and possibly also the profitability for non-pedophiles to make videos of children being molested and the like to spread to pedophiles for monetary gain. My reasoning? Supply and Demand. If everyone wants a Subaru Impreza they suddenly get stolen more and sold for higher amounts than they would have previously. People pay for what they want...

To damn a pedophile who has not molested a child or does not plan to is wrong in my way of thinking, but to deny them of outlets where they can get it out of their system in a way not including a real child is just as wrong.

Solely my thoughts on the matter, I'm doubting I can be convinced otherwise without damn good reasoning. If enough pedophiles want a GTA: The Secret Underground Bunker, make it for them. They'd spend their time playing the game rather than being anywhere near real kids.

[Pete]

I'm not gonna start quoting, but I'll make every argument.

In your own words, a pedophile is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Now, to me, sexual attraction means that you are attracted to them in a sexual manner. When I'm attracted to someone in a sexual manner, nine times out of ten it means that I would like to engage in some form of sexual intercourse with them. I don't know any other way that it goes. Yes, there is a difference between desire and action. Now, if the girl of my dreams came up to me and wanted to perform sexual acts on me, I would not hesitate in saying yes. If the prepubescent girl of your dreams put you in the same position, would you say yes or no. Pretend that the law does not exist.


As for GTA4, I see your point. But I also happen to see GTA4 and videogames in general as stress relief when I can't get to the gym. Killing a person in a videogame is so mundane and routine that it's a nothing action in the world of games. (Now this does not mean that I have the desire to do it in real life, nor does it mean that I'm completely desensitized to such things). Most of the time, there's no challenge to it or any true reward. However, just the idea of getting a videogame rape van and molesting kids takes a lot more of a sick mind than simply killing a few random adults. Yes both acts are illegal in real life and also morally reprehensible, but I think that because murder in videogames is so commonplace that it couldn't even hold a candle to a kiddie rape van.

As for the difference between a 30 year old with no knowledge of evil and an 8 year old with knowledge, I do think that there is a difference, and that it exists. It has a lot more to do with cultural upbringing and socio-economic status. Kids in the ghetto "grow up" a lot faster than kids in Malibu. You can hear about stories on the news and think, oh thats terrible, and then you can see it firsthand and experience the magnitude of it. Being a "child" might not be the proper term for it, but naive and innocent definitely are. But to go back to that point, children aren't supposed to see that type of evil; they're not supposed to experience that type of evil at such a young age. Child molesters are that evil and by performing sexual acts with children, they're robbing that innocence and childhood naivete from them. And yes, some adults live sheltered lives where they still have their innocence and naivete. While those people are quite endearing to meet, they usually get played more often than not, and are usually more shocked of what the world really is like. At the other end of the spectrum, you can have adolescents who are jaded with life.
A kid isn't supposed to start wondering about sex and the other sex until puberty. At that point, they begin to discover stuff about themselves... for themselves. It's where the term "coming of age" stems from. Prematurely thrusting a child into such a situation can only do more harm than good.

As for sex abuse vs murder, I can't argue with an opinion on where bad things lie on the morality scale.

As for the guidance, I feel that it can only lead to inappropriate experiences and sexual contact. While a pedophile might be no less helpful, I think that in dealing with children, it might be potentially more harmful to have a pedophile around. I just don't see the non-link between sexual attraction, desire and action. If I'm attracted to a girl, there's a reason for it. Some time ago, the two heads got together and told me what kid of girl I find attractive. If I see someone I find attractive, they'll send signals to each other telling me that I've just gotta start a conversation. To put yourself in such a position, as both a mentor as someone who desires the student, seems to be almost an abuse of power or influence. If the child is young and impressionable enough, what's to stop you from teaching them that it's okay to be sexual with you.
It's the same reasoning as to why I wouldn't want a recovering alcoholic to work for a brewery. While you might do well at your job, there's still way too much temptation and possibility for bad to happen.

As for your last point, I'll take that back. There have been times when I've learned from my exes and where they've learned from me. I don't necessarily consider it teaching in the same way that I would find myself teaching a child, but that's mostly because I find myself in relationships with women who have an understanding of the world, where I wouldn't have to explain all of the details. It's most definitely not teaching in the sense that a teacher or mentor would, but rather picking up idiosyncrasies or habits, as well as the occasional bit of knowledge.



And as for the whole idea of giving pedohphiles an outlet to just "get it out of their system," I don't really agree with this either. It's similar to the idea of that internet porn is the reason why cases of rape are down. There's no statistical proof that this is true, just a correlation. In the summertime, ice cream sales and crime rates also rise. Is ice cream the reason why more crimes are committed?

I would have to agree with you though, Nathan, that it is wrong to damn someone for something they haven't done. You can't jail someone for something they haven't done, unless there is concrete evidence of plans TO DO something, or if they are stopped en route or right before something happens.

As for people who watch child porn, I think they're just as bad, if not worse than the ones doing the actual molesting. It's terrible enough that it happens, but it's even worse for people to watch it and actually masturbate to it instead of reporting it to authorities.

[Govinda]

There is a reason why, in the UK at least, children cannot undergo major medical treatment without the consent of their parents, guardian, or a mature family member. I'm sure it's the same in the US and a lot of other countries. Before the child hits the age of, in the UK 16, not sure about the US, they are legally classed as not being able to make their own choices about big things. Now, in most cases this can be waived for teenagers, above the age of say, 14, who have matured and have presented their case well.

However, if you're going below the age of ten, when most people are prepubescent, they cannot make choices. They are not, and cannot be, fully informed of what will happen if they say yes, and what will happen if they say no. This is why you can bribe a child away from its parents with a treat and enough gentle coercion even if that child has been battered with 'Don't talk to strangers' from the get go. Even if they know what will happen because they've been taught, they still cannot fully understand it. This is why seemingly savvy for their age ten year old girls have, in the past, got into strange men's cars on their walk to school.

This is why having sex with them is, I think rightly, illegal. Even if they've covered the facts of life or have seen more than they should have, they still will not fully comprehend the situation, probably not for many years after. The process of creating child porn is therefore child abuse, and is therefore abhorrent.

To answer one bit of the conversation, no, you can't start telling people what and what not to think. But when it comes to paedophilia, I think we have to look a little bit deeper. I've read the Stalin quotes, and I'll raise you an old Artistotle: "We are what we repeatedly do." So if someone repeatedly looks at images, be they cartoon or otherwise, of prepubscent children, the argument could follow that if left alone with a child they could act out their oft-fantasied dream. What if the fantasy's not enough anymore? Say someone starts out with low-grade cartoon paedophilia, and then it stops being enough? Like people who make the move from grass to cocaine. The next step would be, metaphorically, the move from coke to heroin or something stronger - the real thing.

Based on that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that is why all images, be they cartoon or otherwise, of prepubescent children be banned. They're tinder for a horrible fire. And yes, I know, snuff movies could do the same thing; yes, I know some games (ie Manhunt, which has done this) could drive people to kill, or at least give them ideas. But at the same time those transitions, from snuff movie to murder or game to murder, would have no reason not to involve adults. They are perforations and imperfections in an adult world that drive adults to do horrible things to one another. Children, I argue, should be kept away from this world until they are old enough to comprehend it, as they will one day. Innocence fades.

And on an almost unrelated note, cartoons can also be as bad as the real thing for one reason which is a lot easier to argue than my last point: supply and demand. The people who make these films and images are well aware of where their demand comes from; watching cartoons, even if you have no intention or desire to progress to the real thing, creates the illusion that one day you might, and adds to the perceived demand.

[Furore]

And as for the whole idea of giving pedohphiles an outlet to just "get it out of their system," I don't really agree with this either. It's similar to the idea of that internet porn is the reason why cases of rape are down. There's no statistical proof that this is true, just a correlation. In the summertime, ice cream sales and crime rates also rise. Is ice cream the reason why more crimes are committed?

Oh I was just thinking more along the lines of, if person x is doing thing a, person x cannot be doing thing b as well. I think the only real flaw in the views I have is that the outlet depicting such relations between an adult and child could be shown to a child to attempt to coerce the child into doing whatever the child molestor wants. It'd possibly seem more acceptable in reality if depicted in the media to one who wouldn't know better. Like how some people believe McDonalds actually has healthy food now. Actually the ideas are more or less healthy, the moldy lettuce and cheese in the real salads aren't, but I digress. It was really just me figuring that if a pedophile is in his room conveniantly playing Grand Child Sex: Vice City he couldn't possibly be in the street offering some kid some candy to jump into some dodgy looking van. It won't make a pedophile any less child loving, but it'd keep them doing something that for the better part wouldn't hurt no-one.

As far as icecream goes, I will say there could very well be a relationship. When it's a hot day and there's more demand for icecream, you likely will get more going missing from shop freezers. Not that it really matters.

As for people who watch child porn, I think they're just as bad, if not worse than the ones doing the actual molesting. It's terrible enough that it happens, but it's even worse for people to watch it and actually masturbate to it instead of reporting it to authorities.

I can't agree with you there. I've heard from some pedophiles that just like some gays, they can't help who they're attracted to. And I'd agree it could be possible as I believe that shit to be hardwired into the brain of some people, as much as I can't help feeling attracted to an attractive girl. It's admirable that some will decide not to give into their urges to have relations with children as they feel it's wrong. I feel it's wrong if they're watching real kids, but as far as cartoons and artistic expression goes, they're not hurting no-one.

"We are what we repeatedly do."

LOLOLOL I'M A VIDEOGAME!!! OR POSSIBLY A FEW HUNDRED VIDEOGAMES!!!!
In all seriousness though, I've played videogames where I've done tons of things I've never wanted to do in real life. And I'm yet to meet someone in real life who decided to go real world GTA despite everyone seeming to have GTAIV at the very least. You get a few fruitcakes out there as with most things of questionable content, but they're a minority. If we're gonna ban one thing for a minority we might as well ban everything else for other minorities.

For all the RPGs I've played, I've never decided to ride a giant chicken wearing homemade armour and carrying whatever I can find similar to a sword. Just as I've never decided to make the world a post-apocalyptic wasteland in the hopes I could befriend some ghouls and be a hero killing all manner of mutated animals (aka Mirelurks).

[Fluffy]

Okay, I'll get into the sexually attracted bit. It just means that there's a sexual response, whether that be to sight, touch, or what have you. That's not all there is to it though. By sexual attraction I also imply that there are other desires. I don't know about you, but when I'm interested in someone, it's not simply for sex. In fact, that's pretty much at the back of my mind. Sex doesn't come into the picture for me until a strong relationship has been established. I've turned down sex offers with adults that I did in fact find attractive, because, quite honestly, I'm not that interested. Yes, I was interested in them, but not quite interested in sex.

So, an honest answer to your question? I prefer other types of physical intimacy besides sex. Hugs, kisses, cuddling, etc.. If it was not illegal to have sex with a girl of a young age, it's possible I would say yes. It depends on the girl and how she approaches it, and what she knows and understands. It would also not include coitus if she is indeed prepubescent. Her reasons why also matter. More often than not, I would say no. I would also not bring up the subject first.

Regarding kids and that they're not supposed to be wondering about sex, I believe this really depends on the person. Myself, I was interested in girls around the later part of my sixth year. Around the age of 7, I discovered masturbation. Around the same time, within the next year, sex was a logical concept. I may have not known the risks and precautions, but if they had been explained, I'm confident I would have understood them fully. Either way, a child need not be thrust into it.

Some people will understand things easily, some people won't. My nephew whom recently turned 11, I'm sure, would have understood what he understands now had it been explained a couple of years sooner. I don't think his 9 year old brother would.

The problem, I believe, is not that children are incapable of understanding things. They simply aren't given the chance. They are assumed to not be able to grasp things fully, when many times, they can. All of that is simply my opinion based on personal experience regarding myself and the many children in my life.

And what stops someone from teaching a kid that it's okay to be sexual with them? Well, probably the same thing that stops everyone else from doing things they shouldn't. I don't deny that there could be potentially more risk having a pedophile with children than with others in terms of sexual abuse. I still don't see reason to believe that the two things can't coexist within a person.


Both Govinda and Silver bring up two very common conflicting views, neither of which, to my knowledge, are supported by evidence. I don't fully agree with either one, but I do tend to lean more towards Silver's argument. This is partially based on personal experience. If you had "gotten it out of your system", then proceed to interact with children, then most likely there won't be any sexual response in said situation. If you ask me, this is safer.

I don't really believe in the escalation argument, but let's suppose I did. Even if such a thing did happen, the viewing of images isn't the start of the escalation. The fantasies do not require images. Therefore, the images aren't the cause. Why ban them?

Furthermore, I propose a third argument. This one also involves escalation. Drawings are the most widespread form of pornography depicting children. If their illegality is to be enforced with resulting prison sentences, then a person who is in possession of it could possibly be very easily convinced to escalate to real child porn. That, of course, is probably going to result in a worse prison sentence. One may as well go for the real deal.

I don't belive this argument either. I think that people are either predisposed to abuse, or they're not. I doubt many things would change that.

[Jin]

To answer one bit of the conversation, no, you can't start telling people what and what not to think. But when it comes to paedophilia, I think we have to look a little bit deeper. I've read the Stalin quotes, and I'll raise you an old Artistotle: "We are what we repeatedly do." So if someone repeatedly looks at images, be they cartoon or otherwise, of prepubscent children, the argument could follow that if left alone with a child they could act out their oft-fantasied dream. What if the fantasy's not enough anymore? Say someone starts out with low-grade cartoon paedophilia, and then it stops being enough? Like people who make the move from grass to cocaine. The next step would be, metaphorically, the move from coke to heroin or something stronger - the real thing.

Seriously? That's the Jack Thompson argument. If you're a molester, I doubt the existence of fake child porn will matter. That's the equivalent of banning violent movies, music and games because some retards use them as excuses for their violent actions. When you open that flood gate, there's no way to stop it. You have to ban all fiction deemed immoral by society. So you have to ban all fiction basically. Except that kid friendly crap. I don't think anyone wants that. Not even Aristotle. It's fine to be wary about them, no one blames you for that, especially those who have kids. But Jesus Christ, let them draw their damn pictures.

"I'd love to kill a cop. If only I had the proper musical accompaniment." ~Some comedian

[Koda]

It's fine to be wary about them, no one blames you for that, especially those who have kids. But Jesus Christ, let them draw their damn pictures.

"I'd love to kill a cop. If only I had the proper musical accompaniment." ~Some comedian

If that is the case, then explain all the crimes, not just child molestation/rape, all crimes. How many of those, when investigated, found evidence on computers, video tapes, PICTURES, etc. showing that the guilty party was "innocently" indulging in whatever crime in the privacy of their own home, but then decided to take it outside of the home and into someone elses enviroment?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any adult that has 'fantasies' about children, and/or watches child porn, be it movies or cartoons, look at or draw pictures of the same, or walk around neighborhoods 'looking' at children can ever be considered safe. Eventually, the inevitable is going to happen. The pictures and/or cartoons are one day not going to be enough. That's when some innocent child is going to get hurt.

A pedophile is a pedophile....a rapist is a rapist. There are no separate definitions of either one as far as I'm concerned. I've been a victim, and no dictionary or shrink is going to convince me otherwise.

If you have children, keep them close, with a very watchful eye. In todays world, there are a lot of sick people out there that prefer to fulfill their fantasies instead of getting help. The world of porn creates more problems than most want to admit.

[Jin]

If that is the case, then explain all the crimes, not just child molestation/rape, all crimes. How many of those, when investigated, found evidence on computers, video tapes, PICTURES, etc. showing that the guilty party was "innocently" indulging in whatever crime in the privacy of their own home, but then decided to take it outside of the home and into someone elses enviroment?

Hmm? I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What do other crimes have to do with this, other than their relationship to media? Are you trying to say that media does cause crime and therefore should be censored or are to trying to say that violent games causing violence isn't comparable to fictional child porn causing molestation? Something else maybe? You're typing far too emotionally, I really can't tell. Please reiterate.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any adult that has 'fantasies' about children, and/or watches child porn, be it movies or cartoons, look at or draw pictures of the same, or walk around neighborhoods 'looking' at children can ever be considered safe. Eventually, the inevitable is going to happen. The pictures and/or cartoons are one day not going to be enough. That's when some innocent child is going to get hurt.

That's why laws are supposed to be based on rationality, not fear. Just because I think it's just a matter of time before my black neighbour decides to rob me doesn't mean it's illegal for black people to live beside me. You have no proof that all pedophiles are child molesters and it's, quite frankly, ignorant to use the two terms interchangeably. You also have no proof that owning fictional child porn necessarily makes said person a molester. I'm not saying you don't have a right to be wary (which I think I said a few times now), but that doesn't mean your fearful assumptions should be law.

A pedophile is a pedophile....a rapist is a rapist. There are no separate definitions of either one as far as I'm concerned. I've been a victim, and no dictionary or shrink is going to convince me otherwise.

Thank you. You've now proven that you will never be rational about this subject. Here's the thing though. I'm an asshole and that kind of crap won't work on me. I don't care what happened to you. I'm sure it was horrible and all, but that doesn't mean Fluffy is going to touch your children. Humans are emotional, laws shouldn't be.

I also need to remind everyone that we're talking about fictional child porn right now as everyone seems to be in fair agreement on the real thing. Just so we remember.

[Koda]

Hmm? I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What do other crimes have to do with this, other than their relationship to media? Are you trying to say that media does cause crime and therefore should be censored or are to trying to say that violent games causing violence isn't comparable to fictional child porn causing molestation? Something else maybe? You're typing far too emotionally, I really can't tell. Please reiterate.

There may be some things the media should stay out of, but I never said the media causes crime. If you want to compare violent games and fictional child porn, we can do that. First of all, most kids these days are hooked on video games which for the most part, if they aren't violent games, they want nothing to do with them. Remember I said for the most part and most kids. With that being said, I do believe that young children have no business playing the really violent games simply because not all are mature enough to decipher between pretend and reality. Look at all the young kids, 6-7-8 years old taking guns to school to kill those they don't like. It's been in the news so don't try to deny that.

Now for the child porn. With the above being said, don't you think, that there are those out there, pedophiles, and no I am not pointing at Fluffy so don't even go there, that are so caught up in their thought process that even cartoon porn could send them to the point of acting on their fantasies? Now look close, I did not say 'causes molestation'.
There are pedophiles and rapists that have spent time in prison, served their time, and have gone right back out and done the same thing. And yes it is legal for them to have porn. Child porn no....but adult porn. Those aren't my laws, those are state laws. I just want to make that part clear.

That's why laws are supposed to be based on rationality, not fear. Just because I think it's just a matter of time before my black neighbour decides to rob me doesn't mean it's illegal for black people to live beside me. You have no proof that all pedophiles are child molesters and it's, quite frankly, ignorant to use the two terms interchangeably. You also have no proof that owning fictional child porn necessarily makes said person a molester. I'm not saying you don't have a right to be wary (which I think I said a few times now), but that doesn't mean your fearful assumptions should be law.

I never said it is illegal for anyone, regardless of what crime they may or may not have committed, to live next door to anyone. And you are correct, I may not have proof that all pedophiles are child molesters, but I'm also not ignorant enough to put enough trust in one to care for my child. You might be that ignorant, but I'm not. And again, I never said my assumptions should be law. But with all the children that are abused every single day, I do believe harsher laws need to be made. You have a way of putting words into others mouths.

Thank you. You've now proven that you will never be rational about this subject. Here's the thing though. I'm an asshole and that kind of crap won't work on me. I don't care what happened to you. I'm sure it was horrible and all, but that doesn't mean Fluffy is going to touch your children. Humans are emotional, laws shouldn't be.

You are correct when you say that I will never be rational, as you say, about this subject. Pretend or not, cartoon or movie, child porn is wrong, I don't care how you look at it. And since you brought up Fluffy, I will say that reading everything that he has said, he does appear to have a very gentle, caring side to him. However, that doesn't mean that I want him to babysit for my family members anytime soon. So here's my thing....I'm a bitch and child porn doesn't work with me. And what happened to me (I don't care if you care about it or not) has nothing to do with Fluffy. It's the principle of the actions.

I also need to remind everyone that we're talking about fictional child porn right now as everyone seems to be in fair agreement on the real thing. Just so we remember.

I realize the subject of this thread. But like I said, fictional or not, in my opinion it is wrong. Someone has to create these cartoons. Now being the asshole that you say that you are, what kind of mind do you think is creating these fictional child porn cartoons? Warner Brothers???

[Jin]

You know what, I was going to respond to this like I usually do, piece by piece, making sarcastic comments along the way but I can't. Your post doesn't make much sense and I'm honestly curious as to what you're trying to say. You obviously believe pedophilia is wrong, that's fine. Quite a common moral position. But what I don't understand is your inability to view pedophiles as normal people with a different sexual desire than you. You seem to treat pedophilia as if its a virus from a zombie movie; that it's just a matter of time before the pedophile in question turns into a molester. Or perhaps more accurately, you talk about pedophiles as if they're junkies. That somehow, looking at fictional child porn will only increase their craving for molestation, like its some addiction they have to kick in rehab. Obviously we view the world in very different ways, so I'm curious, what leads you to either of those conclusions? If I'm mistaken then please clarify. Like I said, your post is very difficult to get anything out of other than "pedophilia and fictional child porn are wrong". Or is that all there is to it? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you have a reason other than your own personal feelings, but if that is in fact the case, just say so and we're done. There's nowhere to go from there.

Oh and please don't take any of my posts 100% literally and then say "I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth". If you have kids then I have to assume you're an adult and are capable of seeing the big picture of things. If not, then fair enough.

[Koda]

But what I don't understand is your inability to view pedophiles as normal people with a different sexual desire than you. You seem to treat pedophilia as if its a virus from a zombie movie; that it's just a matter of time before the pedophile in question turns into a molester. Or perhaps more accurately, you talk about pedophiles as if they're junkies. That somehow, looking at fictional child porn will only increase their craving for molestation, like its some addiction they have to kick in rehab. Obviously we view the world in very different ways, so I'm curious, what leads you to either of those conclusions? If I'm mistaken then please clarify. Like I said, your post is very difficult to get anything out of other than "pedophilia and fictional child porn are wrong". Or is that all there is to it? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you have a reason other than your own personal feelings, but if that is in fact the case, just say so and we're done. There's nowhere to go from there.

Oh and please don't take any of my posts 100% literally and then say "I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth". If you have kids then I have to assume you're an adult and are capable of seeing the big picture of things. If not, then fair enough.

I don't think many can view a pedophile as a 'normal person'. In my own opinion sexually fantasizing about a little child is not normal. Wanting to watch or see explicit movies (cartoon or otherwise) or photos of a child is not normal. A person's sexual preference is a personal choice and/or matter.....until it involves a child. Then it becomes a public problem. Yes I am a mother, but I also know two children that have been molested. Not my child, but friends. I also know the person who did it. He was convicted and now registers every year, and is labeled for life. Now where my problem comes in to play, is knowing this person, and knowing what he's done and where his life is now, it turns my stomach. Because of his 'different sexual desire', there are two human beings that will never forget, and will have to live with what he did to them for the rest of their lives.
And he is addicted to porn as well. Not child porn, but porn. So yes I have a real problem with porn as well. Call me old fashioned if you will.
Many pedophiles never touch a child. And yes they do have the same right to a peaceful life just like anyone else providing they never touch a child. They might be your neighbor, your postman, hell they may even be your brother or sister. But to say that their sexual thought process is normal? I don't agree with that.
I understand the difference between exploiting real children and a cartoon character, but that doesn't make it normal, right, or moral. Whether you want to believe it or not, any pedophile that watches that sort of thing will sooner or later act out his fantasy. So yes, it is just a matter of time.
I'll do some research on the subject and give you links, statistics, whatever you want. But it seems obvious to me that you are not a parent nor do you know a child or the parents of a child that has gone through such a horrible experience.
This is all just a matter of opinion, and we obviously disagree. But I am willing to bet that most would agree with me simply because in order to create such a cartoon, that person would have to have one sick mind and would in reality probably be a pedophile as well.

[Jin]

You're right about one thing, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't need any links, so don't worry about that. If you're hell bent on moral objectivity and defining for yourself what is normal then there's nothing I can do. I don't see how someone can hold your position while not holding the same view of homosexuality or any other fetish for that matter. Perhaps you do hold that view though.

Nothing more to be done.

[Koda]

Homosexuality is a hell of a lot different from being a pedophile. I can't believe you even compared the two. Sexual preferences between two [U]adults[U] is completely out of the ball park on this one. Grant you, some would say that isn't normal either, but on that note I say, to each his own. But when it comes to children, it's a completely different story. Every child has the right to be kept safe from predators. Whether they, the predators, have been active with a child or not.

We all agree that anyone that would harm a child is a monster....period. Some of us just disagree on cartoon child pornography. I for one think it is just as bad as watching a real child being exploited. It's still aimed at exploiting children to perverted adults.

You are an adult and have formed your own opinion. I am also an adult with a child older than you are. And unless you are a pedophile yourself, which I highly doubt, I'm willing to bet that within a few years, or when you have children of your own, your opinion will change.

Thanks for the discussion. It has truly been interesting.

[Furore]

I don't think many can view a pedophile as a 'normal person'.

What to you then is a normal person? As far as I'm aware, few people conform to a single image in every way. Everyone has unique traits and other eccentricities, even if they decide to keep them to themselves. I would consider a human without an eccentricity or unusual traits as quite abnormal myself, as I'm guessing they'd be a minority if they existed at all.

In my own opinion sexually fantasizing about a little child is not normal.'.

In my opinion self harming emos shouldn't exist as I hate reading about that crap, it depresses me. But, they have every right to do this and I recognise it would be wrong, and very likely futile in many cases to attempt to conform them to what I see as 'normal'. The point I'm trying to get across to you, is some people will do things that conflict with what you see as right and/or wrong, and to them it'll be something else as in their own little subjective world, things are seen differently. My example is flawed in that I feel that emos can actually help being emo and just don't want to, while many pedophiles may have no choice. They can't help where their attraction lies. Many of them will however keep themselves in check and not pursue children, just as some middleaged guys might be attracted to women yet refuse a relationship for whatever reason they have. I know a few guys I've worked with in such situations. Know how they get over the sexual frustration? Copious amounts of porn in most cases.

Wanting to watch or see explicit movies (cartoon or otherwise) or photos of a child is not normal. A person's sexual preference is a personal choice and/or matter.....until it involves a child. Then it becomes a public problem.

It's only a public problem if the pedophile becomes what is known as a 'child molestor'. A 'child molestor' is one who may or may not be a pedophile who decides that he or she will molest a kid for whatever reason. It doesn't even have to be a pedophile. Daddy drinking too much alcohol and being temporarily ****ed in the head due to intoxication is just one example.

Yes I am a mother, but I also know two children that have been molested. Not my child, but friends. I also know the person who did it. He was convicted and now registers every year, and is labeled for life. Now where my problem comes in to play, is knowing this person, and knowing what he's done and where his life is now, it turns my stomach. Because of his 'different sexual desire', there are two human beings that will never forget, and will have to live with what he did to them for the rest of their lives.

It is sad that there are child victims, but through damning pedophiles in general, all you're doing is creating more victims. Pedophiles don't molest children, child molestors do. And while many child molestors probably are pedophiles, it has been stated quite correctly earlier in this discussion that the two terms are not one and the same. Child molestors should have to atone for their crimes, but why should others be forced to atone for crimes they haven't committed and may not ever commit? Run people, the thought police are here!!!

And he is addicted to porn as well. Not child porn, but porn. So yes I have a real problem with porn as well. Call me old fashioned if you will.

I'm not really big on porn myself as I feel the majority to be exploititive and/or disrespectable to the individuals involved. Fair enough if they want to be creating it and sharing it as I know some are into that, but much of what is churned out seems to be done for monetary gain. I've also heard of drugs factoring in a few times. But let me ask you this, in your experience, how many males AREN'T into porn? In most workplaces as well as highschool, 'normal' people seem to love their porn. It just seems to not be taboo to share the interest with those who are 'respectable' or of the opposite gender.

Many pedophiles never touch a child. And yes they do have the same right to a peaceful life just like anyone else providing they never touch a child. They might be your neighbor, your postman, hell they may even be your brother or sister.

Indeed. Quite true. I agree with the above three sentences wholeheartedly.

But to say that their sexual thought process is normal? I don't agree with that.

I don't agree with lots of things, though I would think having a sexual appetite is quite normal. It's not a pedophile's fault he/she likes kids any more than it's your fault you eat food. And if you don't eat food, I'm wondering how you're still alive at this point in time. Both of those are things that can't be helped. Sure you could decide not to eat food, or even certain varieties of food, but then pedophiles can decide they won't advance their interests onto real children as well.

I understand the difference between exploiting real children and a cartoon character, but that doesn't make it normal, right, or moral. Whether you want to believe it or not, any pedophile that watches that sort of thing will sooner or later act out his fantasy. So yes, it is just a matter of time.

Ok, fine, you're totally correct. Now it's been my fantasy to detonate a large bomb ever since playing Fallout 3. Know where I can find a bomb, and the area where Megaton would be in the undestroyed United States? I'm also gonna wear a Final Fantasy character's clothing while I do this, and go on a GTA inspired a trip to the point in the US as plane tickets and taxi fare are just too damn expensive. No really, I am.

I'll do some research on the subject and give you links, statistics, whatever you want. But it seems obvious to me that you are not a parent nor do you know a child or the parents of a child that has gone through such a horrible experience.

I do know the child of a parent who had his child molested by an ex friend of his he had minding his son. I helped that parent bash the lights out of the bastard for what he did. But whether or not the guy was a pedophile doesn't matter. He was a child molestor, and that shit don't roll anywhere. Grab some links, grab some statistics, but make sure to do some research into things like subjectivity, personal beliefs and opinion (their validity). Maybe even interact with some nicer pedophile so they can explain their position to you and tell you the difference between 'liking' and 'sexually abusing'.

The word itself stems from the greek words 'pais' meaning boy, and 'philia' meaning love, friendship. To that extent I could be an asshole and label anyone who likes kids a pedophile. Oh it is incorrect usage of the word, I won't deny that, but I'd find it amusing to label any of those who like kids in any way yet hate those with desires towards them as pedophiles. Do you like kids?

This is all just a matter of opinion, and we obviously disagree. But I am willing to bet that most would agree with me simply because in order to create such a cartoon, that person would have to have one sick mind and would in reality probably be a pedophile as well.

Aye, personal opinion. I'm just against persecuting people for something they can't control is all. But I might be doing that to those like you if you are incapable of realising that pedophiles are people just like you and me. They're more 'normal' than I feel some people realise. There's a lot of negative connotations surrounding the word pedophile, yes, but I personally hope they will one day be accepted for who they are - just another human being. Just like straights, gays, people with different skin colours, both genders, et al. It would be an ideal world, yet is unfortunately hampered by those who let their prejudices die...

Maybe I should go on a crusade against those who have a taste for chilli sauce? FIENDS, THE LOT OF THEM!!!

[Fluffy]

If that is the case, then explain all the crimes, not just child molestation/rape, all crimes. How many of those, when investigated, found evidence on computers, video tapes, PICTURES, etc. showing that the guilty party was "innocently" indulging in whatever crime in the privacy of their own home, but then decided to take it outside of the home and into someone elses enviroment?

I honestly don't know how many. I also don't see it as evidence of what you suggest, whether it's many or not. If someone who committed a crime has video, pictures, etc., of whatever crime it is they're culpable of, they were probably interested in it beforehand.

Let's have a scenario. A man is interested in killing another person. It doesn't really matter who, he just wants to kill another person. Instead of going and doing it, he looks up some pictures, and then some videos, regarding killing people. At some point maybe he finally decides he'll do it.

I can't see any way you could get proof that the videos or pictures are what caused him to go over the edge. There's also no proof that they didn't. You can't know what caused this person to finally decide to kill another person without knowing what's in his mind. The only facts we have here is that this person decided to kill someone, and he had videos and pictures regarding killing people. Any conclusions you pull out of that is pure speculation.

And again, I never said my assumptions should be law. But with all the children that are abused every single day, I do believe harsher laws need to be made. You have a way of putting words into others mouths.

Yet you're advocating that fictional child porn should be illegal, are you not? And your argument is based on your assumptions. I don't believe Jin was putting words in your mouth at all. If you're not advocating that it should be illegal, please let me know, because I am of the belief that you are.

I also disagree with harsher laws. I don't think that's a good idea at all. The sentences you can get for these things are already really bad; of course depending on where you are. In many cases they come near the sentences people receive for crimes such as murder. In some cases they surpass it.

If someone is going to receive a life sentence for child sexual abuse, they might very well just kill the child instead, and prevent them from talking. If they're caught, the sentence is only going to be just as bad anyway. Their chances of not being caught are probably better.

As I've said before, my personal stance is that I'd rather have a child alive, albeit having suffered sexual abuse, than being murdered.

Someone has to create these cartoons. Now being the asshole that you say that you are, what kind of mind do you think is creating these fictional child porn cartoons?

But I am willing to bet that most would agree with me simply because in order to create such a cartoon, that person would have to have one sick mind and would in reality probably be a pedophile as well.

I don't see why it matters what kind of mind is creating them. This seems like nothing more than an attack on pedophilia.

A person's sexual preference is a personal choice and/or matter.....until it involves a child. Then it becomes a public problem.

I agree with Silver on this one. It only becomes a public problem when someone's rights are violated. Even then, it should have nothing to do with whether the person is a pedophile or not. The only issue is that someone's rights were violated. It should not matter what kind of person the perpetrator was.

Whether you want to believe it or not, any pedophile that watches that sort of thing will sooner or later act out his fantasy. So yes, it is just a matter of time.

This is the most outrageous claim in this entire thread. No further comment.

I'll do some research on the subject and give you links, statistics, whatever you want.

Save yourself the trouble. I'll tell you right now, unbiased research doesn't exist. Any in existence do not include those who do not commit crimes. I'm sure the majority of pedophiles are not included. Getting more accurate research has been tried, though. Nobody actually wants the truth. Actually, there are a few who want the truth, but they never manage to get their work published.

But it seems obvious to me that you are not a parent nor do you know a child or the parents of a child that has gone through such a horrible experience.

This is a pretty flawed statement. It may have not been directed at me, but it could probably just as easily be said about me. My best friend was a victim of child sexual abuse. That does not at all alter my opinion, nor does it alter her opinion of me or pedophiles in general.

Homosexuality is a hell of a lot different from being a pedophile. I can't believe you even compared the two. Sexual preferences between two adults is completely out of the ball park on this one. Grant you, some would say that isn't normal either, but on that note I say, to each his own.

But they are comparable. Depending on the definition you're using, they are both not normal, as you even stated. If you're willing to admit that homosexuality is not normal but is okay, but pedophilia is not normal but not okay, then leave the normality out of it. Because it obviously doesn't matter whether it's normal or not.

Every child has the right to be kept safe from predators.

And I believe that every child has the right to love and be loved by whomever they choose. This is a basic human right. It is my opinion that children should be no exception.

Yes, they should still be protected. Everyone else is. But we go well beyond protecting children. We take away their freedoms and call this loss "rights". I don't believe that things you are forced into can be considered rights.


One final thing. I ask for clarification on something, because I don't think I'm the only one confused on this.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any adult that has 'fantasies' about children, and/or watches child porn, be it movies or cartoons, look at or draw pictures of the same, or walk around neighborhoods 'looking' at children can ever be considered safe. Eventually, the inevitable is going to happen. The pictures and/or cartoons are one day not going to be enough. That's when some innocent child is going to get hurt.

Many pedophiles never touch a child.

Whether you want to believe it or not, any pedophile that watches that sort of thing will sooner or later act out his fantasy. So yes, it is just a matter of time.

(emphasis mine)

Where do you stand on this? To me, this looks like you're stating two conflicting views and claiming them both as your own.

And...

and no I am not pointing at Fluffy so don't even go there

But didn't you say that it's inevitable? If it's inevitable then that includes me.

[Pete]

Ok, I'm gonna back Koda on some of the things she's said.

For starters, If you were to watch videos of murders and how to commit murder and then did it, the computer files would be deemed circumstantial evidence.

I also would have to agree that it would take a sick mind to come up with and physically draw depictions of child sex. It's part of the production process, and it essentially is the guy holding the camera for a porn shoot, as well as the director and everyone else involved. I also can't imagine pedophiles approaching legit artists with money, asking them to draw children performing sex acts. The logic just doesn't work that way. If I really wanted a specific girl, I wouldn't ask an artist to draw a picture of her nude for me. It would just be weird, and kinda wrong. me being me, I wouldn't draw it myself either, but you can see why a pedophile wouldn't ask someone to do it for them.

As for laws about such material, you can't really put a damper on free speech, and that's the beauty of this country.

Regarding the laws for child sex abusers, and sex abusers in general, I'm glad that the law gives them such hefty sentences. Even better is when the boys in the yard find out what the person is in for. Theres a difference between being a molester/ abuser and accidentally dropping your towel as you get the morning paper though. That's a given, though the sex offender laws in this country sometimes hurt the wrong people.


In regards to homosexuality and pedophilia. They are similar in that they're both not "normal". That's as far as the similarities go. With homosexuality, more often than not, the attraction and acts themselves are between consenting adults, who are of age, or at least old enough to understand what's going on. Pedophilia is the attraction and sexual desire for prepubescent and other young children, who cannot legally give consent. They can give you an answer themselves, but have no legal right to do so, because science and the law state that their minds aren't developed enough to do so.


As for children having the right to be loved by whomever they choose, I agree to an extent. Children should be happy, but they should also be safe. If I had kids, and they started telling me they wanted to spend time with another adult, not a school teacher, relative or personal friend of mine, I'd become mighty suspicious, and might just knock on their door. Children should be loved and nurtured, but by their parents first and foremost. Children should be loved by who the parents choose, because they know better than their children and are able to make better decisions (one would hope). Plus, a 30 year old parent could see a wolf in sheep's clothing much better than their toddler.

[Fluffy]

The computer files still cannot be determined to be the cause of the crime, which is, if I understand correctly, what Koda is saying. Circumstantial evidence is only used to determine whether someone is guilty or not.

And whether it takes a sick mind or not to draw things is irrelevent. The issue is the drawings themselves. It does not matter who drew them. Unless if you're trying to argue that the images are only bad depending on whether the artist is a pedophile or not. I think that'd be a ridiculous argument.

Can't put a damper on free speech? Well, that's exactly what they've done. These things are already illegal. Of course, in the first case where someone was convicted under this "new" law, they're apparently attempting to appeal to the Supreme Court to have them decide whether the previous ruling regarding virtual child porn in 2002 still stands. The new law was signed in 2003. Currently, they're illegal.

I consider the laws far too harsh. Concerning images of child pornography, people can get 20+ years. That's just for possession. You don't have to have created it, distributed it, or even have paid for it. You just have to have it. Now, this includes drawings. I can't see how anyone could think it should be harsher than that.

I also think child sexual abuse laws are either too harsh, or not specific enough. Too many things can be considered "child sexual abuse" and still receive the same sentence. I just don't think that stuff like showing a kid porn or your genitalia is crime enough to make someone receive a life imprisonment sentence.

They can give you an answer themselves, but have no legal right to do so, because science and the law state that their minds aren't developed enough to do so.

I wasn't aware that they had finally based the law on something. All this time I thought it was arbitrary. I guess I missed the memo when it was discovered at what precise moment a person becomes mature enough to make informed decisions.

And I guess it was implied, but both homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they're both sexual orientations as well.

[Koda]

The computer files still cannot be determined to be the cause of the crime, which is, if I understand correctly, what Koda is saying. Circumstantial evidence is only used to determine whether someone is guilty or not.

And whether it takes a sick mind or not to draw things is irrelevent. The issue is the drawings themselves. It does not matter who drew them. Unless if you're trying to argue that the images are only bad depending on whether the artist is a pedophile or not. I think that'd be a ridiculous argument.

I didn't say the computer files were or would be the 'cause' of any crime. I'm saying that in more cases than not when such items are seized and information is found related to or almost exactly matched to the crime committed, then such material was more or less a 'tool' to the perpetrator. Therefore meaning, the files weren't the cause, that's ridiculous to even say.

And I also didn't say that the images were bad only if the artist was a pedophile. What I did say was.......that who ever was creating the images would have to have a sick mind himself/herself, because it is still an image of exploiting children, and that they were PROBABLY, I said probably not definitely, a pedophile themselves.

Can't put a damper on free speech? Well, that's exactly what they've done. These things are already illegal. Of course, in the first case where someone was convicted under this "new" law, they're apparently attempting to appeal to the Supreme Court to have them decide whether the previous ruling regarding virtual child porn in 2002 still stands. The new law was signed in 2003. Currently, they're illegal.

I consider the laws far too harsh. Concerning images of child pornography, people can get 20+ years. That's just for possession. You don't have to have created it, distributed it, or even have paid for it. You just have to have it. Now, this includes drawings. I can't see how anyone could think it should be harsher than that.

I also think child sexual abuse laws are either too harsh, or not specific enough. Too many things can be considered "child sexual abuse" and still receive the same sentence. I just don't think that stuff like showing a kid porn or your genitalia is crime enough to make someone receive a life imprisonment sentence.

As an adult, why would you even THINK of purposely showing a child porn OR your genitalia? Is that abuse? Absolutely! But in most cases, and I do know one person that got a slap on the wrist and 4 years probation, if it's a first time offense and the child wasn't touched, they don't spend the rest of their lives in prison. Repeat offenders, yes, they generally do get a pretty harsh sentence as they should. I said before that yes there are many that are wrongfully labeled for the rest of their lives because of stupid decisions they made between the ages of 18 and 21. Being a sex offender is a broad range to cover. But this isn't about sex offenders, unless a pedophile has been caught and convicted. Then he/she is then considered a sex offender or sexual predator.

I wasn't aware that they had finally based the law on something. All this time I thought it was arbitrary. I guess I missed the memo when it was discovered at what precise moment a person becomes mature enough to make informed decisions.

So you think that any child at any age is mature enough to make informed decisions. A 5 year old would be mature enough to know right from wrong, as well as knowing if they were being exploited or just taking pictures? Is that what you are trying to say? Let's raise the age to 10 or 11, are they mature enough to 'consent'? You can't be serious if you honestly think that.

And I guess it was implied, but both homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they're both sexual orientations as well.

I'm not the one that made that comparison. But no I don't think they are the same. But I will say this Fluffy, and Jin can bash me all he wants, and so can anyone else, I don't really care. I've said it before and I'll say it again, being a mother, you can bet your ass that if my child were a little one again, I would protect him from predators active or not. And statements made that pedophiles are just like everyone else. No they are not...........pedophilia IS NOT normal. Do I know a pedophile, I certainly do. Has he been to my home, yes he has. Do I trust him around kids, absolutely not! Am I profiling, yes, I will admit that I am.

You yourself admit to being a pedophile. But you also have stated that you know the boundaries and won't cross those boundaries because you know that it is illegal. Let me ask you a question.....if you were in a country where they turn their heads and don't care...and knew that you could get away with it...........would you?

I know there are those that don't act upon their fantasies. And no Jin, pedophilia is not something that you can go to therapy for, it doesn't work that way. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am. But this is honestly a discussion where there are no winners. Jin is screaming equality to everyone and all should be treated the same. Well, sure I agree with that until it involves exploitation of children.

Fluffy, you will always be attracted to children. And even though you and a few others think that it's okay to exploit children in porn whether it be fiction/cartoon/photos, etc., do you honestly not understand how horrific that all sounds to a parent? It's the idea that there are so many out there that use the internet, the underground, and whatever else to exploit our innocent children/siblings etc. that enrages us. Regardless of the disagreements, and going back and forth, I still stand by my words of.... child pornography is wrong....cartoon or not.

[Fluffy]

I didn't say the computer files were or would be the 'cause' of any crime. I'm saying that in more cases than not when such items are seized and information is found related to or almost exactly matched to the crime committed, then such material was more or less a 'tool' to the perpetrator. Therefore meaning, the files weren't the cause, that's ridiculous to even say.

If that's not what you're saying then perhaps you weren't very clear what you meant. Both Jin and I came to the same conclusion, if I'm not mistaken.

I quote again.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any adult that has 'fantasies' about children, and/or watches child porn, be it movies or cartoons, look at or draw pictures of the same, or walk around neighborhoods 'looking' at children can ever be considered safe. Eventually, the inevitable is going to happen. The pictures and/or cartoons are one day not going to be enough. That's when some innocent child is going to get hurt.

Whether you want to believe it or not, any pedophile that watches that sort of thing will sooner or later act out his fantasy. So yes, it is just a matter of time.

To me this says "watching this kind of stuff inevitably leads to molestation". Is that not saying that it's a cause? If not, then please clarify.

And I also didn't say that the images were bad only if the artist was a pedophile. What I did say was.......that who ever was creating the images would have to have a sick mind himself/herself, because it is still an image of exploiting children, and that they were PROBABLY, I said probably not definitely, a pedophile themselves.

I never said you did. That was in reply to Pete, and it wasn't even directed at him. It was more a general statement. And who is creating them is still irrelevant.

As an adult, why would you even THINK of purposely showing a child porn OR your genitalia?

Why one would think of doing it is irrelevant.

So you think that any child at any age is mature enough to make informed decisions. A 5 year old would be mature enough to know right from wrong, as well as knowing if they were being exploited or just taking pictures? Is that what you are trying to say? Let's raise the age to 10 or 11, are they mature enough to 'consent'? You can't be serious if you honestly think that.

No. I do not base anything on age. The law does this. That is precisely what I'm against. I base it on a person's individual capacity. I fully believe that at age 8 I would have known the difference, and would have been able to give informed consent if I wanted had everything been explained to me. I do not believe that my 9 year old nephew is capable of the same. I also believe that some 18 year olds are not as capable as some 10 year olds. So, I believe a 5 year old can be mature enough. Very unlikely, but well within the realm of possibility. The higher you go, the more likely it is. I simply do not agree with a blanket age that tries to cover all bases, while sacrificing the rights of many in the process.

But I will say this Fluffy, and Jin can bash me all he wants, and so can anyone else, I don't really care. I've said it before and I'll say it again, being a mother, you can bet your ass that if my child were a little one again, I would protect him from predators active or not.

One who does not seek out prey is not a predator. A minor detail, but please be more careful with your words.

No they are not...........pedophilia IS NOT normal.

Again, irrelevant. You're making a big deal about something that does not matter. Homosexuality is not normal either, yet you're not making a big deal about that. You can be against pedophilia all you want, but please do not use the reason that it's not normal if you aren't going to be against other things that are not normal as well.

Let me ask you a question.....if you were in a country where they turn their heads and don't care...and knew that you could get away with it...........would you?

Would I what? I assume you mean have sex with a child. Asked and answered. You may refer to my other post if you want the answer.

http://thefinalfantasy.net/forums/in...ml#post1178675

And even though you and a few others think that it's okay to exploit children in porn whether it be fiction/cartoon/photos, etc., do you honestly not understand how horrific that all sounds to a parent?

I do not think it's okay to exploit children, and nobody has disagreed on anything other than fictional material. What I disagree with you on is that I believe that fictional child porn is not the exploitation of children. No children are being compromised or hurt.

I understand fully how horrific some material can seem to some people. But that is not a reason to make it illegal. I don't care who finds what horrific, that is not a reason to make it illegal within the privacy of a person's home. Child pornography is not illegal because it's horrific. It's illegal because a crime, child sexual abuse, must be committed in the process of making it. This is not the case for fiction.

Regardless of the disagreements, and going back and forth, I still stand by my words of.... child pornography is wrong....cartoon or not.

Okay. You think it's wrong. I get that. Nobody here has anything against that. You can think it's wrong all you want.

The issue is when it comes to legality. So I ask again, since you didn't answer the first time, are you or are you not advocating that it should be illegal? If you're not and all you have to say is that it's wrong, then I'm done with this discussion.


You still didn't answer and I still would like an answer on this, though:

One final thing. I ask for clarification on something, because I don't think I'm the only one confused on this.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any adult that has 'fantasies' about children, and/or watches child porn, be it movies or cartoons, look at or draw pictures of the same, or walk around neighborhoods 'looking' at children can ever be considered safe. Eventually, the inevitable is going to happen. The pictures and/or cartoons are one day not going to be enough. That's when some innocent child is going to get hurt.

Many pedophiles never touch a child.

Whether you want to believe it or not, any pedophile that watches that sort of thing will sooner or later act out his fantasy. So yes, it is just a matter of time.

(emphasis mine)

Where do you stand on this? To me, this looks like you're stating two conflicting views and claiming them both as your own.

[Chez Daja]

And I believe that every child has the right to love and be loved by whomever they choose. This is a basic human right. It is my opinion that children should be no exception.

Unless this is pure biasness, I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that if a child (thinks he/she) wants a relationship that extends beyond a friendship with an adult, that they should be granted the right?
That's the thing with kids -- they have no idea what they really want. I know of a lot of children who could be easily manipulated into "wanting" something more of a relationship just because an older person says so. They're impressionable, which is why this kind of thing is illegal.

Yes, they should still be protected. Everyone else is. But we go well beyond protecting children. We take away their freedoms and call this loss "rights". I don't believe that things you are forced into can be considered rights.

The freedom to do what? Enter into relationships that they are clearly not mature enough or ready for? Children are protected to such an extent because they will grow up hating what they have done or been put through.
No matter what ANYBODY says, a five year old is never going to be mature enough to handle a sexual or 'beyond friendship/dating' type of relationship. I also believe that a child is an equivilent 'posession' of the parent until they reach adulthood, or at least mid-teens (age 16-18; whether or not they are still immature by then is besides the point).

Whether or not all peadophiles act on their desires is irrelevent to me. If my child was even so much as being watched by a paedophile, I would want to protect him or her even more, knowing that there is always a chance, big or small, that my child could be abused.

Children = no understanding of adult relationships. To think otherwise is biasness. You are looking for an excuse to make your relationships with children appear more 'normal'. Good for you if you're not going to touch up a six year old. But the word of one paedophile on the subject of children will never be one that I can even fathom to understand or trust. I believe you to be a good person with good intentions, but I can't bring myself to understand many of your thoughts on this. Usually, my close mindedness extents only onto petty subjects. This time is different.

Quoted for truth:

In regards to homosexuality and paedophilia. They are similar in that they're both not "normal". That's as far as the similarities go. With homosexuality, more often than not, the attraction and acts themselves are between consenting adults, who are of age, or at least old enough to understand what's going on. Pedophilia is the attraction and sexual desire for prepubescent and other young children, who cannot legally give consent. They can give you an answer themselves, but have no legal right to do so, because science and the law state that their minds aren't developed enough to do so.

Whoever tries to argue against this point is completely missing the point.

[Fluffy]

Unless this is pure biasness, I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that if a child (thinks he/she) wants a relationship that extends beyond a friendship with an adult, that they should be granted the right?

I suggest you leave any bias I may have out of it and focus on the argument. We've managed to generally avoid ad hominems thus far. Let's keep it that way. And not everyone who makes this claim is necessarily a pedophile.

To answer your question, that is generally what I'm saying, yes. Granted that they actually understand what it is that they want.

That's the thing with kids -- they have no idea what they really want. I know of a lot of children who could be easily manipulated into "wanting" something more of a relationship just because an older person says so. They're impressionable, which is why this kind of thing is illegal.

Many adults also don't know what they really want. That is not reason enough to deny them the choice.

And that's just the thing. You know many children who are one way. So do I, but I also know many children who are not. Everyone is different. People do not mature at the same rate as all others.

The freedom to do what? Enter into relationships that they are clearly not mature enough or ready for? Children are protected to such an extent because they will grow up hating what they have done or been put through.
No matter what ANYBODY says, a five year old is never going to be mature enough to handle a sexual or 'beyond friendship/dating' type of relationship.

So before you made this claim, I can assume that you have met with every child, present and future, and evaluated them on a personal basis and determined it will never be so? Because until you have, your claim can't correctly be assumed to be true.

I do have a question for you though. Step away for a moment from your belief that children can't be mature enough to consent. Forget that you think that it's not possible and let's say that there's a child that can. Should that child be allowed to have the relationship that he or she desires?

I also believe that a child is an equivilent 'posession' of the parent until they reach adulthood, or at least mid-teens (age 16-18; whether or not they are still immature by then is besides the point).

And I believe that this is a huge violation of human rights. No person should be the possession of another. To make them so is to label them subhuman.

Children = no understanding of adult relationships. To think otherwise is biasness. You are looking for an excuse to make your relationships with children appear more 'normal'[. . . .] I honestly believe that this is pure biasness based on the fact that you yourself are a confessed paedophile.

I disagree both with the term "adult relationships" and the claim that children have no understanding of them. These are only "adult relationships" because children are generally not allowed to have them. Interestingly enough, they are sometimes allowed to have them between each other, so the term "adult relationships" is still absurd. I've already addressed your claim that children have no understanding above.

And again, let's please avoid the ad hominems. Why I make my argument does not really matter.

[Pete]

****in a. I just spent the past hour typing up a response, only to have lost it. I'm pissed and am gonna go bare bones, so I apologize if I don't flesh anything out as much as I had originally.

As for comp files. If they say how to commit a murder, and you're the suspect in a murder where the killing matches that of the files, then yes, they're evidence. Same thing if you're on trial for molestation, and they find kiddie porn, your ship is sunk.

As for the legality of kids and their decisions. You tell me why a 10 year old can't get a tattoo, and I'll tell you why that same kid can't legally enter a relationship with an adult.

On top of that, children's minds and physical bodies aren't sexually wired yet. Rather, the equipment might be there, but the current isn't running through those wires yet. Having sex with a child would have to be a one sided deal, in which only the adult got pleasure. A, you're not even of comparable size, so it would probably cause immense pain, and B, the child's body isn't primed for that yet; nerve endings and the desire aren't even there yet.

This is the same thing with homosexuality and pedophilia. They might both be persuasions, but the difference is that the objects of desire is fully developed. I'm not gay, but I could tell you that some men are good looking compared to others; I could even say that so and so is attractive looking. However, with "normal" people, you never hear that a child is attractive. They might be a cute kid, but thats where it ends. No attraction whatsoever, despite both persuasions being abnormal.

Also, Koda tells you exactly why she thinks illustrated porn and relationships should be illegal. She was a victim, is a mother and knows both victims and sex abusers. She has enough experience in her life to know what she feels is right for both her and for her family.

Chez also brings up a good point. If you weren't a pedophile, would you be making the same argument? Personally, it seems that you are trying to justify your own beliefs by tackling the law.

Adult relationships extend much deeper than childhood relationships. Adult relationships encompass much more of the worldly matters that adults face on a daily basis. Work, sex, taxes, etc are all part of an adult relationship. Children's relationships don't extend much past kissing and going to the mall, and maybe sex if theyre both dumb.

While it would be great to have a relationship that's worry-free, it would still be wrong to pursue one with a child because of A, the mental gap, B, the physical aspect, and C, the fact that a child can't comprehend the stresses of adult life, and cannot even begin to help make a difference.

As for kids being "property," I agree with that, but the word is wrong. The correct word would be responsibility. Having kids is a responsibility, and good parents would treat their kid as a prized possession. My parents certainly did. I was well-fed, well-educated and most certainly taught right from wrong, most definitely getting the boot to the ass when I did something bad. How can you possibly pursue a relationship with someone that still needs to learn to look both ways when they cross the street? Or still doesn't know their own phone number? Are you going to make out with them and then help them tie their shoes? It's absolutely ridiculous and farcical.

[Fluffy]

As for comp files. If they say how to commit a murder, and you're the suspect in a murder where the killing matches that of the files, then yes, they're evidence. Same thing if you're on trial for molestation, and they find kiddie porn, your ship is sunk.

Yeah, we've already established that. You said it in your last post and I agreed. They can show that a person is quite likely guilty. But the files can in no way be proven to have caused the person to commit the crime. That is all I'm saying.

You tell me why a 10 year old can't get a tattoo, and I'll tell you why that same kid can't legally enter a relationship with an adult.

Because arbitrary laws say they can't. I'm quite well aware of why.

However, with "normal" people, you never hear that a child is attractive.

Yeah, because most people are just dying to tell you that a kid is attractive. I believe there are studies somewhere out there that estimate that at least 20% of people find them attractive on some level. Not preference for them, but simply find them attractive. I honestly dislike looking stuff up and never remember its location, but I do recall a credible study.

Also, Koda tells you exactly why she thinks illustrated porn and relationships should be illegal. She was a victim, is a mother and knows both victims and sex abusers. She has enough experience in her life to know what she feels is right for both her and for her family.

If that's all there is to it then there's nothing to be discussed. This is not a reason to make things illegal. Would you disagree?

On top of that, children's minds and physical bodies aren't sexually wired yet. Rather, the equipment might be there, but the current isn't running through those wires yet. Having sex with a child would have to be a one sided deal, in which only the adult got pleasure. A, you're not even of comparable size, so it would probably cause immense pain, and B, the child's body isn't primed for that yet; nerve endings and the desire aren't even there yet.

Quite simply, wrong. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. First of all, the claim that the nerve endings aren't there is just ridiculous. They are there from before birth, and they are quite capable of feeling the same types of pleasure as an adult. The desire can also be present. It's not that uncommon. Therefore, your claim that it would have to be a one sided deal is clearly flawed. Size also has nothing to do with causing pain. You're jumping to conclusions here. A sexual encounter need not include coitus, which is the only case in which size would be a problem.

Chez also brings up a good point. If you weren't a pedophile, would you be making the same argument? Personally, it seems that you are trying to justify your own beliefs by tackling the law.

No, she doesn't bring up a good point. Why I'm making my argument does not matter. The argument is independent of my reason why. Would it be any different if I wasn't a pedophile and was making the same argument? No. The argument would still be the same. Why I make it is irrelevant.

To answer your question, though, yes, I'd still be making the same argument. I like our freedom of speech. I would defend it no matter what the material in question was. The thing about freedom of speech is that sometimes you won't like what's being said. If we start making things illegal because someone doesn't like it, then we could potentially make everything illegal and just forget about freedom. For every thing out there, there is probably someone who doesn't like it.

And when it comes to children, I believe they deserve the same rights as everyone else. This is not a view held only by pedophiles.

[Furore]

And when it comes to children, I believe they deserve the same rights as everyone else. This is not a view held only by pedophiles.

That I really can't agree with. I'm all for pedophile rights so long as they 'behave', but children just aren't up to what adults are. I don't even think there's enough of a minority who are capable of understanding the situation and making decisions that giving them the same rights can even be seriously considered.

Children ARE impressionable. I could very easily rig up a small explosive device and excite a random kid up enough to go blow it up somewhere. Not that I would, but it wouldn't strike me as being hard to do.

I might say there are some who are mature beyond their years a few years short of being 'legal', but they still don't strike me as a majority or even just larger sized minority.

****in a. I just spent the past hour typing up a response, only to have lost it.

Nothing worse then when that happens, I know that feeling all too well...

As for comp files. If they say how to commit a murder, and you're the suspect in a murder where the killing matches that of the files, then yes, they're evidence. Same thing if you're on trial for molestation, and they find kiddie porn, your ship is sunk.

As far as this comparison goes, are drawn pictures of murder illegal? Or what about downloaded pictures from shock sites showing murder victims and the like? I would find it odd if those were illegal, especially as there's a good number of people into that stuff and I'm yet to hear of any number of cases concerning this material. As Fluffy did say earlier I believe, media concerning pedophilia including drawings and the like *IS* illegal. Freedom of speech they say...

As for the legality of kids and their decisions. You tell me why a 10 year old can't get a tattoo, and I'll tell you why that same kid can't legally enter a relationship with an adult.

Ten year olds can get tattoos. It's illegal for a tattooist to give a child a tattoo, but once they find some guy who'll give them one, I've never known anything to happen to the child. And I know plenty of kids who've given themselves tattoos. The area I live in has a few people like that.

This is the same thing with homosexuality and pedophilia. They might both be persuasions, but the difference is that the objects of desire is fully developed. I'm not gay, but I could tell you that some men are good looking compared to others; I could even say that so and so is attractive looking. However, with "normal" people, you never hear that a child is attractive. They might be a cute kid, but thats where it ends. No attraction whatsoever, despite both persuasions being abnormal.

I'm confused. Are you bisexual, confused, or straight and think that some guys have nice asses? The issue as I see it is that some are attracted to this, some are attracted to that, but some of those attracted to this may not neccesarily pursue this as they would feel it's wrong. I'll say it again, not all pedophiles are child molestors. They cannot help their attraction and there is NO EVIDENCE that drawings of pedophile acts will cause one to molest a child, just as there's no evidence a furry will look at his/her work and attempt to **** a squirrel. In terms of sexual activity I ask you this. If the average guy is pent up not having had sex or masturbating in ages, what will relieve it? Let me now answer with what I believe the answer to be. Either getting laid OR batting off to whatever floats a guy's boat. If a pedophile can relieve himself on a picture of a fictional kid rather than screw some random real one, ain't that at the very least a better thing to have happen?

Also, Koda tells you exactly why she thinks illustrated porn and relationships should be illegal. She was a victim, is a mother and knows both victims and sex abusers. She has enough experience in her life to know what she feels is right for both her and for her family.

And I know some pedophiles well enough to tell you not all of them are scum of the earth. Hell, I had a mate confide in me after seeing one of my posts concerning pedophiles earlier. Good guy, he'd never hurt no-one. If people found out his secret they'd likely hurt him. I've been a victim of some things myself, but I recognise that not everyone who shares a trait of an abuser will act like that person. Generalising people like that ain't cool at all. I can understand her wanting to protect her family, I myself wouldn't let any pedophile mind my kids due to uncertainty. But I still feel it ain't cool to think negatively of all or even MOST pedophiles.

Chez also brings up a good point. If you weren't a pedophile, would you be making the same argument? Personally, it seems that you are trying to justify your own beliefs by tackling the law.

What motivates anyone to do anything? If he didn't care about the issue at hand, why would he even create a topic? My reasons are solely that I don't like feeling that someone is getting ****ed over unfairly and that itself stems from me being ****ed over several times for my past character and actions. I don't personally believe in complete impartialness and I feel everyone here has some reason for thinking (and acting) as they do. Maybe they grew up in an outdated 'normal' society which never challenged it's views sufficiently? You never really know...

Adult relationships extend much deeper than childhood relationships. Adult relationships encompass much more of the worldly matters that adults face on a daily basis. Work, sex, taxes, etc are all part of an adult relationship. Children's relationships don't extend much past kissing and going to the mall, and maybe sex if theyre both dumb.

True enough in general. Though some of the kiddies seem smart enough these days to go to a petrol station toilet and insert a buck or two into the ol' condom dispenser.

As for kids being "property," I agree with that, but the word is wrong. The correct word would be responsibility. Having kids is a responsibility, and good parents would treat their kid as a prized possession. My parents certainly did. I was well-fed, well-educated and most certainly taught right from wrong, most definitely getting the boot to the ass when I did something bad.

Sometimes being treated like shit helps a person realise just how wrong some things are. If it doesn't turn them into what they once despised of course...
But I digress. My point is that being 'well-fed', 'well-educated' and brain was- errr... taught the values of someone else does not make you any more of a person than someone who was forced to learn things the hard way. Different people have different ancestors, all with different unique opinions.

Quoted for truth:

In regards to homosexuality and paedophilia. They are similar in that they're both not "normal". That's as far as the similarities go. With homosexuality, more often than not, the attraction and acts themselves are between consenting adults, who are of age, or at least old enough to understand what's going on. Pedophilia is the attraction and sexual desire for prepubescent and other young children, who cannot legally give consent. They can give you an answer themselves, but have no legal right to do so, because science and the law state that their minds aren't developed enough to do so.

Whoever tries to argue against this point is completely missing the point.

I still don't think you should label something that isn't 'normal' 'wrong'. I'm guessing that more people have either physically or verbally assaulted another person than not throughout their lives, which would make the practices normal. Are they right?

I myself feel that a physical relationship between an adult and a child is wrong. But I also feel that sometimes people cannot help being who they are and it would be wrong of me to condemn them for something they haven't done and may never do just because I am aware it is their appetite. Some vegetarians miss the taste of chicken I'm sure...

[Pete]

You are right in saying that they can't prove causation. That's a given. Unless of course it's a hypnosis file, but I'm not even going to bother with that bs. That's just reaching and totally irrelevant to the matter. And Nathan, pics of murder and the like aren't illegal. However, if the pics were taken by a murderer or someone filming a murder in progress, then they'd be considered evidence of illegal activities. It wouldn't be a crime to own those pictures, unless of course they were stolen.

As for people saying children are attractive, I don't know about the study, but maybe perhaps parents look at children this way (i.e. "oh your boy is so handsome"). Being 22 and not really around kids at all, I wouldn't know, but seeing kids on tv, I've thought that some little kids are in fact cute. Cute, however in the adorable sense, not the "I'll buy you a drink" sense. I wouldn't call such kids attractive, so as saying I'd like to be around them, but rather endearing or heart warming.

And Nathan, for the record, I'm straight. However, I could understand why some men are perceived as attractive and others aren't. In my rushing to get all of my ideas back into the post, that came out really poorly and sounded pretty gay. But trust me, I'm not swooning over any pictures of Brad Pitt or any other dudes for that matter.

And yes, when it comes to the two alternatives of either molesting a kid or just rubbing one out, then whacking off is most definitely the better choice.

As for Koda's personal beliefs on the legality of such matters, I feel that she has every right to her opinion. While I don't think that her past or background should matter in the legality of a law, I do think that it weighs heavily on her opinion of why it should be illegal. We're always going to have prejudice against the ones who've done us harm; it's human nature. But to answer your question, her belief does not qualify legality. It is a tricky situation though, which we've clearly come to that conclusion at least.

And I feel like I misrepresented what I wanted to say about children's bodies and sex. Essentially, I don't believe that children are sexual beings with raging hormones, because they're not. When I was little, I used to watch that crappy HBO porn at 2am. I was fascinated with it because the girls were totally different than anything I'd ever known or seen before. And sure, I'd get excited, but it was the whole combination of making a discovery and doing it at a time and place where I could (and did) get into a lot of trouble. I feel that if a child were to enter a relationship with an adult, it would be moreso out of those reasons, discovery and the thirll of maybe getting into trouble, rather than the sexual reasons that adults enter relationships.

Now, I'm not saying that all relationships are sexual, but it does play a role in most.

Also, I think that once puberty occurs, there is clearly a difference in the thought processes of people. They do, for the most part, become much more sexually interested in the opposite sex (or same, before I get reamed out). People become more aware of the opposite sex and their role with them. They'll start doing different things in order to stand out or to appear more attractive. It's all just Darwinism at it's finest.

I'm inclined to believe that prepubescent kids do have some inkling as to this as well, but it's more based on what society says, and the very beginnings of attraction. Back in grade school everyone had crushes on different girls, for whatever reasons. One or two girls would always get a ton of Valentines cards while others would get none. I don't think that it's necessarily that 15 boys were all sexually attracted to one girl, but rather that boys are supposed to like the prettiest girls in the class, and that girls were supposed to like the tallest boys in the class.

On one hand, it could be Darwinism at work, but it could also simply be gender stereotyping that we've all seen since the dawn of time. I couldn't tell you how their histories panned out, but as far as I know, none of them went on to sleep with each other, despite that seeming attraction.

Now, about an adult/ child relationship. I still think that a child's mind isn't mature enough for a sexual encounter. Or at least enough to initiate one or truly comprehend what's going on. Even a lot of sex between adults is mimicking and mirroring what the partner does. "Oh she's taking off my shirt, I'll pull hers off, etc." If a child were to ever reach that point with an adult, I feel like they'd simply make some sort of game out of it to try and mimic the adults actions. Though, in all fairness, lots of kids think it's either funny or gross when their parents kiss. I don't know how many would be cool with even attempting it themselves.

The physical aspect is another story. Before puberty, I had no sexual urges that I can recall. Yes, I had crushes on girls, but it was as innocent as you can get. I didn't find any pleasure in any kind of touching, though, the excitement of viewing something I wasn't supposed to, left me walking sheepishly every once in a blue moon.
Adults though, and even those from puberty and beyond all have sexual urges, which either stem from or desire a pleasurable sensation in the genital regions, hopefully leading to orgasm. This just doesn't happen before puberty strikes. The hormones aren't present in the body. So no matter what a prepubescent child does sexually, they will not experience the sexual gratification of achieving orgasm.

I agree that the freedom of speech should be upheld, but not when the wellbeing of others is put in jeopardy. It is unknown that no child is harmed when sexual illustrations are produced. You can take the benefit of the doubt and assume that the kids are safe. I think it is a good question though, to ask what kind of person would be drawing these images in the first place. I have some artistic ability, but that doesn't mean that I'll simply up and draw anyone or anything naked. I feel that Koda is also making the argument that someone with a pedophile's mindset would have to be drawing such images.

Personally, I don't think that images of nude children should be legal. I do understand free speech and completely understand the idea that these images are not of any particular living or actual children. I also understand though that free speech ends when it comes to threaten the well being or potential well being of others. You can't yell "fire!" in a public place because it could lead to a stampede and deaths among injuries... unless of course there is a fire.
Child pornography should be illegal because it demonstrates a willfulness to exploit children who are not legally old enough to consent. Plus, the people who masturbate to such images are technically sexual deviants for pleasuring themselves to the images of children. On top of that, it should be illegal because it would be giving those same labelled sexual deviants their drug of choice.

Lastly, as for the rights of children. I think that up until age 18, a human has certain rights. These are called basic human rights. They include shelter, food, education, and safety of both mind and body. The child's guardian (parent) is responsible for providing these basic services until that child is able to work and to sustain enough to live on their own. By age 18, provided a good education, a person should be qualified enough to obtain a job and start making their own income and decisions about their life. 18 is the magic number because it ensures most of the populace will have made it through high school while under a steady roof.

[Doc Rocco]

Also, I think that once puberty occurs, there is clearly a difference in the thought processes of people. They do, for the most part, become much more sexually interested in the opposite sex (or same, before I get reamed out). People become more aware of the opposite sex and their role with them. They'll start doing different things in order to stand out or to appear more attractive. It's all just Darwinism at it's finest.

Exactly. Research has proven that children do not become interested in relationships and the opposite sex until they reach puberty. Only in very rare cases will you find a child who wants some sort of relationship.

Girls aged 12 to 14 are usually interested in boys, but boys of the same age are generally not interested in girls. Early adolescent girls, therefore, have more problems with interaction with the opposite sex than boys of the same age. Bye the age of 14 or 15, boys begin to develop an interest in girls, and the interests of the sexes begin to compliment each other. Each becomes concerned with "getting along" with the opposite sex. Young adolescents are often insecure and uncertain about relationships.

The majority of children just aren't ready for relationships before they hit puberty and the hormones start kicking in. They're insecure, and they don't have any idea what an actual relationship is about. Nearly every "couple" under the age of 13 is a joke. The extent of their relationship is holding hands, and in a lot of cases, the two won't even speak to each other. How can a child have a relationship with an adult when they can't have one with a person of their own age?

Children are innocent and impressionable. If they weren't, they would not need parents to protect them. That's the main purpose of a parent - protecting their child. Try taking a newborn from their mother. She'll tear your head off. Now imagine a mother's reaction if her say, 6 year old child was in a relationship with a 30 year old. She's not against pedophiles, nor with them. What would be going through her head? Her innocent child, with no sexual impulses or idea about an adult relationship, is in a relationship with a person who does experience sexual desires and wants an adult relationship. Eventually, there's going to be a sexual encounter of some kind, but the kid won't know what's going on. Even if it refuses, it's impressionable. Her instincts will tell her it's wrong. If instinct tells us it's wrong, then in most cases it's not good.

Basically, a child's mind is not fully developed. Our brains actually don't stop developing until we're in our early twenties. Formal operational thinking doesn't kick in until a kid is 11, before then they need something physical in front of them to solve a problem. If they can't solve a problem without something in front of them, then how can they be ready for the intricacies of a relationship?

As for child porn, actual pictures of naked children - whether they're engaging in sex acts or not - should not be allowed. As I said, and as it has been said before, they're not mature enough to know what's going on. The kid is going to get his kit off because an adult told him too. They don't know that someone is getting sexual gratification out of it. How would you feel, knowing some older guy is whacking off to an image of your younger sister or brother? That they, an innocent child with no real ideas about sex and the like, are an object of sexual desire?

Drawings... Well, I'm on the fence here. One the one hand, no actual children are victims. On the other hand, what if the drawings aren't enough? Like Gov mentioned, it's like the progression from marijuana to cocaine to heroin. That might not apply to all people, but it is a common pattern.

[Fluffy]

That I really can't agree with. I'm all for pedophile rights so long as they 'behave', but children just aren't up to what adults are. I don't even think there's enough of a minority who are capable of understanding the situation and making decisions that giving them the same rights can even be seriously considered.

Children ARE impressionable. I could very easily rig up a small explosive device and excite a random kid up enough to go blow it up somewhere. Not that I would, but it wouldn't strike me as being hard to do.

I might say there are some who are mature beyond their years a few years short of being 'legal', but they still don't strike me as a majority or even just larger sized minority.

So how many is enough? For me it only takes one. If one person is capable of it, I believe that person is deserving of their right to it.

This does not mean that suddenly the word of all children is taken as legal consent. Only those mature enough for it. Abuse of a child is still punished, just as abuse of an adult is punished.

An unlikely scenario, but this is what I believe would be right.

Essentially, I don't believe that children are sexual beings with raging hormones, because they're not. When I was little, I used to watch that crappy HBO porn at 2am. I was fascinated with it because the girls were totally different than anything I'd ever known or seen before. And sure, I'd get excited, but it was the whole combination of making a discovery and doing it at a time and place where I could (and did) get into a lot of trouble. I feel that if a child were to enter a relationship with an adult, it would be moreso out of those reasons, discovery and the thirll of maybe getting into trouble, rather than the sexual reasons that adults enter relationships.

And, pardon the inclusion of this, but when I was little I used to masturbate all the time to fantasies of girls I knew. Little being 7 years of age. Like I said, we all mature at a different rate.

Before puberty, I had no sexual urges that I can recall. Yes, I had crushes on girls, but it was as innocent as you can get. I didn't find any pleasure in any kind of touching, though, the excitement of viewing something I wasn't supposed to, left me walking sheepishly every once in a blue moon.

See above.

Adults though, and even those from puberty and beyond all have sexual urges, which either stem from or desire a pleasurable sensation in the genital regions, hopefully leading to orgasm. This just doesn't happen before puberty strikes. The hormones aren't present in the body. So no matter what a prepubescent child does sexually, they will not experience the sexual gratification of achieving orgasm.

This, like I was saying before, is false. Prepubescent children are capable of orgasm. I had them all the time. In boys, there is no ejaculate, but the orgasmic sensation is there. In girls, it is no different than in women.

Child pornography should be illegal because it demonstrates a willfulness to exploit children who are not legally old enough to consent.

So, if I was to draw up a picture right now, you would consider me qualified as willing to exploit children? Actually, I can't draw very well. Maybe I should get my brother to do it, he's a great artist. Would he be considered willing to exploit children?

Plus, the people who masturbate to such images are technically sexual deviants for pleasuring themselves to the images of children. On top of that, it should be illegal because it would be giving those same labelled sexual deviants their drug of choice.

Maybe I missed the point, but I don't see why this matters.

Her innocent child, with no sexual impulses or idea about an adult relationship, is in a relationship with a person who does experience sexual desires and wants an adult relationship.

The bolded are assumptions. Without knowing the two people involved personally, you don't know that this is true.

On the other hand, what if the drawings aren't enough? Like Gov mentioned, it's like the progression from marijuana to cocaine to heroin. That might not apply to all people, but it is a common pattern.

Would you take this stance on fictional material of every crime? Drawings, videos, video games, all depicting violence, drug use, etc.? If not then I don't know how you can hold this position. If you would hold it against all crimes, though, then by all means.

[Sasquatch]

If there is such a thing as a "victimless crime", cartoon pornography is exactly that. And the idea that pedophiles who like kiddie porn will end up as child molesters is about as ridiculous as the idea that normal people who like normal porn will end up as rapists. Or the idea that listening to violent music or watching violent movies will make people more violent.

As far as children's consent, there are two ways to see this. One is that a child is not fully developed, emotionally, physically, or mentally, and thus cannot give adequate consent. Whereas rapes of adults must usually be accompanied by force and violence, rapes of children are usually accomplished with trust and coercion. Therefore, children can be convinced to do things that rationally-thinking adults would know better than to do.

On the other hand, it used to be said that anybody with an attraction to somebody of the same sex, or to a person of a specific color, must not be mentally capable of making those decisions. A few thousand years ago, pubescent children would be considered young adults.

One question that I've never had answered, however ... is something I'll ask here. And I'd honestly like an answer to it -- last time I asked it (to a different crowd), I was told by some people that there is no difference between any "preference", and by others that I was a hateful homophobe for even insinuating that there was any similarities between them. So here's the question.

What is the difference between pedophilia, homosexuality, zoophilia, and necrophilia?

Keep in mind, I am NOT asking the difference between child molestation, homosexual sex, bestiality, and ... sex with corpses. This question does not concern the actions, but merely the desire and attraction.

[Jin]

What is the difference between pedophilia, homosexuality, zoophilia, and necrophilia?

As short an answer as possible: children, the same gender, animals and the dead, in that order. That's it.

Take that however you'd like. Some will see that as an attack on homosexuality, others as a defense of the other three. But that's really all there is to it. I'm sexually attracted to stockings.

[Fluffy]

What is the difference between pedophilia, homosexuality, zoophilia, and necrophilia?

I'd say on the most basic level, the difference is merely the target of attraction, desires, fantasies, etc., that accompany them.

I would say that pedophilia and homosexuality are very often accompanied by other feelings beyond a sexual interest, whereas zoophilia and necrophilia are perhaps not. I can't say for certain, because I am not, nor do I know, a zoophile or necrophile. However, this is not inherent to the actual sexual orientation, paraphilia, or whatever you want to call it. I do not assume that all pedophiles or homosexuals are actually romantically interested in the target of their desires. I don't think I could say it's actually a difference between the paraphilia (for the purpose of this, I am considering homosexuality a paraphilia, as it is not quite the norm).

Another difference is when the desires are acted upon. When it comes to pedophilia, a child is usually assumed to be a victim. With adult homosexuality, an adult can consent.

When it comes to zoophilia, it is assumed that the animal is a victim. I'm not sure that we can know whether the animal wants to be part of it or not, though.

With necrophilia, to be honest, I can't see an actual victim. Clearly, the corpse can't consent. But does it have to?

But none of that really answers your question. It can't be assumed that whomever has the paraphilia will actually act upon it. This is not a difference between the paraphilia, but a difference between different actions.

tl;dr

What Jin said.