Your View on Child Porn

[Phantom]

Hey all, wanted to do my part to contribute to the reivival of the I.D Board. Well getting on the topic at hand, I don't think anyone attempted to press on this subject, but what are your views on Child Porn? There have been alot of issues, controversy, and debates over this heated topic. I for one think Child Porn is awful. What about the child? This kinda thing I can be sure scars the child for life. This will probarly for some children end up having some serious issues in adolesense and adulthood, literally changing their view on relationships, love, and even life. I've never been a victim but for some of the children or adults that have been in that sitution I think it probarly either ruined them (inside and out), or didn't change them at all (but holding it in won't end the pain.). Here are some cases of Child Porn incidents I've read on the net and the news:

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news...hild_porn.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5192732.story

What are your throughts on this matter?

[Sinister]

I think that whatever you do is on your conscience. Everyone knows the laws, or presumably most. And ignorance of the laws is not a defense.

If you're asking me what I think? Hah... I don't have an opinion because that's not me. I don't do those things, so I don't have to deal with those moral struggles. But I can tell you one thing, as a future father, I find it to be highly disturbing. Taking advantage of a child's utter ignorance of that particular topic and all it's implications, for whatever reason, seems a decent argument for the vagary of evil.

I also find it rather amazing that the majority of sites are littered with ads like "Barely legal" and such. I find those very...idk, interesting. As if there was some in between point in what is okay and isn't and we're all just waiting for the distinction to be made. "Almost @%#&ing a child"

Freud once said that the only abnormal sexuality is to not have one. But there are some sexualities, abnormal or no, for obvious reasons, are not acceptable to practice and to encourage it with media taken about said material. It's all stuff I have nothing to do with, don't have to condone or reprove or worry about at all and I'm proud of it.


-Sin

[Dimi]

I think that people that actually find child pornography arousing definitely deserves to be ass-raped twice a day. And I mean that in the most painful way as possible.

This one part of the link that you posted I was reading, really pissed me off:

Jackson confessed that she allowed John Jackey Worman, 41, of Colwyn, to install video cameras in her bathroom in exchange for his paying the rent. Worman paid Jackson to advertise her babysitting services. She would leave her young charges in Worman's care while she left the home.

It's one thing to resort to something stupid in order to ease your finance troubles. But when it's at the expense of a child's safety then that's just straight up sickening and morally wrong for a child to be exposed in such a degrading manner. As far as I'm concerned, this couple's got issues. Which it does say in one part that the lady has a history of mentall illness.

But just think of the parents that sent their child to this "Baby-Sitting Service" and for them to find out that these people that they trusted to be around their child, are doing things like this. And personally, if I was a father and if I had found that my child was a victim to this, you're damn right I would go down there and kick their asses. Though it may not be the most rational thing to do, I'm sure there are parents that are angry about this and I don't blame them.

And call me cruel but I don't care if these people even have a mental illness. And I know it's not being used as an excuse in this case, but anyone with common sense knows that this is a wrong thing to do. You don't need to be a genious to figure it out.

[Chez Daja]

How is there any other way to look at child pornography than it being sick, wrong and degrading and mentally scarring for the child?

No, I don't agree with it. There is, on no scale anything acceptable about child pornography, looking at it or making it. I will agree that those that do enjoy it are sick in the head and need locking up and helping. There is no other opinion except that it is desperately sick.

[winterborn86]

Chez you took the words right outta my mouth, that was exactly what i was thinking.

People turned on by child porn is screwed up in the head, and needs a serious amount of therapy to get themselves sorted out, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Children are innocent and and vulnerable and are easily messed up by stuff like this.

[Pete]

I don't see how it's even feasible for anyone to see this as acceptable. I agree with the rest of you. Pedophiles should be drawn and quartered.

It's one thing for old guys to be jerking it to porn of say 18-19 year olds. It's a little sketchy, but still perfectly fine and legal. At least at that stage, those girls are fully developed mentally and physically. A six year old is not.

Another thing that's so ****ed up about child porn is that the kids have no idea what's going on or why anything is happening. By that very process, you're using children and potentially destroying their lives just so some sketchy losers can get off. On top of that, they're innocent, and never did anything to deserve such a thing, or even had the knowledge of what they were actually doing.

****in scum.

[Meier Link]

I completely agree that child pornography is completely wrong, sickaning, disturbing, gross, immoral, vile, and perturbing. There is nothing worse in this world to me then a petifile.

There is a great thing a about children and that is their innocence and when some perve comes along and takes that away from them just to get their jollies off or to make a buck so others can get their jollies off just utterly furiates me.

But there is another aspect that I would like to get some opinions on and that would be about the other end of the spectrum, because as far as I can tell all that has been talked about is children under 12. I find it disturbing that childeren under the age of 17 have been know to put theirselves out there on the web, making porn, showing everyone their bodies, knowing good and full that it is wrong. Some of which decide, of their own free will, to do that with older men/women. They post their smut all over the enternet with easy VIA webpages and other D/L share programs and some people think it is alright because it is of their own free will.

What are your thoughts on that? Whose to blame in these type of situations?

I personaly think it is a discrace and very wrong. But I wouldn't blame the parents, that is the last thing that I would do. Sure the parents provide the tools to do so (like web cams and computers), but you know as well as I that kids are generally more tech savvy then the parents, and from once being a kid, that it is easy to do what you want and not get caught. It's not like parents are like "Hey look what I bought a web cam and a digital camera, now go make me some porn!" At least in most cases that is the situation, but if the parents are involved then that does make it worse and that much more disturbing.

[Koda]

First of all I think there should be more severe punishment for those involved in the child pornography circle. Five years imprisonment is not enough. When it comes to a child who is being abused for the sake of entertaining some sick pedophile, they should get life imprisonment without parole. Let the other guys in prison take care of them... literally! No child should lose their innocence or endure the emotional, physical, or mental turmoil that ultimately occurs when this type of thing happens.
I know that where I live, a local news station took it upon themselves to check out the addresses of local sex offenders. They are not suppose to live within 100 yards of any schools, daycares, parks, or any other facility that is basically built or for children. The news team found several that were right next door to daycares, and just a few houses down from schools. I think our local law enforcement should man up and get the extra manpower to keep track of these people. Hell we have 'Neighborhood Watch' in many areas, if nothing else, why not have 'Pedophile Watch' and let the public keep track of these sick bastards so our young children can be safe!
And anyone that can get aroused from watching a naked child or do anything sexual to a child, well there just are no words to say how sick and evil minded they are. I know there are 'Pedophile Forums' on the internet, and that alone sickens me! Track them down and lock them up!!
As for the younger ones that are posting photos on the internet on their own... well, honestly I believe that many have probably already been abused in one way or another, and are just acting out what they think is okay. It isn't okay, and they themselves need counseling and help if in fact they have been abused.
In todays world, most everything on the TV, radio, commercials, and movies, it's all about sex. We as a society have let things get way out of hand, and we are seeing the horrible results in the news every single day. Parenting is not like it use to be... we have babies having babies because they are starving for attention from their parents, or runaways that prostitute themselves to survive. The list can go on and on....but for the child porn fans...................you all need to burn in hell!!!!!

[Pete]

I know that several (if not all) state and local governments make it a big issue to publish the names and addresses of sex offenders in county registries and online. All you have to do is do a simple google search for sex offenders in whatever area. The unfortunate thing is that you only find them when it's too late. They've either done something horrible or have pictures on their hard drives.

I want to blame MTV and myspace for turning young kids into whores, thinking that it's cool and even "right" to put pictures of yourself up, doing just stupid things. At the same time, you can't just blame the media, because the parents are most certainly involved as well (well, in reality, in the situations, they're NOT, and that's the problem!).That's a topic of discussion for another day, because there's a lot involved, and I'm pretty beat.

[amFu]

Sorry if there has been a convosation emerging through this thread but i really don't have the time to read all the posts, they are quite long. So i will simply express my opinion as i actually want to psychiatrically evaluate peaphiles (sp?), anyway on with the post, althought i do completely agree with what i am sure has been majority post of "it's sick and morally reprehencable." What may not be realised is that peadophia is a mental illness as much as Bi-polar or Altsimers, and people sticken by this morally corrupting degenerative illness are actually wrongly labelled as wirdo's or freaks they are just one or two chromosones away from you or me.

oh and incase you think i am pro peadophia in anyway i am grad to tell you that you are very wrong i think it is revolting expliotation of those who are not properly developed cognatively or unfortunate youngsters who are victims of overwhelming strength beyond there own.

on a final note as victims are often killed if they are left with there captures to long i don't think anyone person can be pro the murder of innocent but simply believe that the ends justify the means.

[Dimi]

Originally posted by amFu
What may not be realised is that peadophia is a mental illness as much as Bi-polar or Altsimers,

I somewhat agree which what you are saying but in the end, being bi-polar or having alzheimers (You did mean that right?) are completely different things then being a pedophile. I view pedophilia more of a psychologial thing then possibly a mental thing. But, people that are considered pedophiles usually do have some sort of mental illness.

You also have to think on the other side of how it affects their victims which are children. Children lack the mental and emotional comprehension that adults have. But then again, it makes you wonder at what age are both molesters and pedophiles are at mentally other then their physical appearance. And in some cases, pedophiles not only fantasize about having sexual encounters with children but it can also lead to something else bigger and lead to sexual abuse which can definitely affect a child for the rest of his/her life.

Originally posted by Pete
I want to blame MTV and myspace for turning young kids into whores, thinking that it's cool and even "right" to put pictures of yourself up, doing just stupid things. At the same time, you can't just blame the media, because the parents are most certainly involved as well (well, in reality, in the situations, they're NOT, and that's the problem!).That's a topic of discussion for another day, because there's a lot involved, and I'm pretty beat.

Well said. A lot of the media glorifies sex. Whether if it's in magazines, MTV, myspace, or even in movies, kids idolize those kind of people and tell themselves that they want to look like their favorite celebrity. It;'s more of an acceptance thing the way I see it. But even so, it still attracts the wrong kind of people by revealing too much skin.

[Martin]

I'm going to chuck my two cents in for what it's worth.

It's morally reprehensible. That's all there is too it, and yes it's been said of course but there's no two ways about it. There is no excuse, there is no need and it's socially damaging. It's a subject that if I'm being honest I'm somewhat emotionally detached from I have to say, but that's only because I have to say I've not had much experience with it. I daresay any of us have really, bar what we read on the news and suchlike. But it's such a sickening act to take the innocence of youth.

It used to be a topic of conversation in a thread that my good friend Koda started on Sex Crimes and the Internet, and my views were made perfectly clear in there also. Let's put it this way, being the youngest sibling in my family, I have a lot of nieces and nephews, with another little girl to be born in about a month and a half. If anyone, and I repeat anyone harmed so much as a hair on any of their heads in any way, I would come after them and I would not be held responsible for my actions. I almost fully echo Fishies' sentiment.

[dimmufan]

Interesting topic Phantom.

I suppose we can all agree that child porn is morally wrong and physically degrading. A child's body is nothing to look at in lust and in want. The people who take an active interest in the bodies of children really are sick people. And speaking of which, pedophiles have a disease that can be cured. Lots of pedophiles were probably victims of child abuse and it is all they know. Some were probably outsiders growing up and got picked on a lot so now they don't have proper social skills. Whatever the case, there is definately something wrong with their thinking processes and therefore can be considered as having a mental illness. It might seem that I'm sticking up for pedophiles, but I'm not: they really are sick people and if I ever have any kids I certainly would not let them near my kids. I know two guys that are sex offenders. I've known one of them since 7th grade and the other since 9th grade. They aren't bad people: they just made a horrible mistake in the course of their lives. But I still wouldn't trust them around any kids, not until I know for sure that they are completely cured from their diseases.

EDIT: 666th post!!!

[lottiepop]

I'll take the bait. You're disgusting and quite frankly every post you've made has been rude or pointless.

Back on topic. Child porn in inexcusable, I was surprised to hear that women only get 15 years. I think pedophiles should be locked up for life. They are like murderers, in effect they have "murdered" a child's innocence and most probably ruined their life.

Porn at it's best is pointless, but child porn is just awful, the exploitation of children in these situations actually makes me want to puke. Child porn is akin to slave labor in my book, no-one should be able to justify this.

[OnOneRyder]

I'm not sure why this was even made a topic in the intelligent discussion forum, there's not much to discuss. Taking advantage of a child for sexual gratification is wrong on every level, and no one that's here is going to dispute that....I hope.

What I've always noticed however is the oblivious infatuation men have with young girls. Over the past century we've gone from a society that accepts a man being with a younger girl to one where literally the age of innocence is defined by a single date (18). The thing I find interesting however, is the amount of "just 18" porn and suggestive material you find in all forms of media. Kind of to say that this is the best we can get while still being legal? So in essence, they'd prefer a younger girl.....and from there where do you draw the line? My point being, I think the only reason we have this age is because without it there's no protection for younger girls/guys from older people interested in them for sexual reasons. For thousands of years we accepted grown men sleeping with girls who just entered puberty but only in the last century has a stop put on it. Is it really that shocking that there are still those out there attracted to girls/guys of this age?

*this of course is all thrown out the window for pedophiles interested in very young children. I think those people should be exterminated*

[zodiark12]

There is no discussion about this child pornography IT IS WRONG The legal age limit is there because that's when women should be able to say y or n on their own. I assume that this forum is about actual children not young adults and to this I say WRONG. They are innocent like was stated above. They are easily messed up so to speak. I don't have any but I have 2 nieces that if somebody did something to them the person would fear me more then hell itself. That being said I hope all pedophiles get rounded up and put into a camp and killed painfully

[M16]

What's the point of this thread? Nobody is going to come in here saying "No, I think child porn is great." Obviously the general consensus is that it's wrong.

[Jin]

No, I think child porn is great.

Well maybe not, but this thread is boring as sin, so I'm going to play devil's advocate.

First and foremost:

What may not be realised is that peadophia is a mental illness as much as Bi-polar or Altsimers, and people sticken by this morally corrupting degenerative illness are actually wrongly labelled as wirdo's or freaks they are just one or two chromosones away from you or me.

Just like homosexuality is a disease, right? Come on, don't be daft.

There is nothing worse in this world to me then a petifile.

Really? The Holocaust? The Armenian genocide? The Rape of Nanjing? The Ukrainian famine in the 30s? The Great Leap Forward? The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution? Superman 64? None of these things are worse to you than some nobody harmlessly jerking off to some picture of a kid in swim trunks?

Let's begin with the old Confucian standard, the rectification of names, because you people are all confused. A pedophile is not someone that molests children. A pedophile is not someone that possess child porn. All a pedophile is is someone that is sexually attracted to children, which is a relative thing to begin with. Moving on.

"It's morally reprehensible" isn't an argument. Granted, you probably weren't intending to pass it off as one, but for argument's sake, let's try to be objective. Saying that child porn allows people to take advantage of minors is also in illegitimate argument as the same can be said about "adult porn". The only legitimate argument is that minors are not developed enough to make these decisions for themselves. The cut off point is, of course, an arbitrary number that differs from place to place and time to time. So how then do we determine whether someone is mature enough (whatever that means) to be involved in pornography? We don't subject anyone to an examination. Instead it's left up to a chronological "milestone" that is supposedly, on average, an indicator of a person's maturity.

Hypothetical situation. A bright young 8 year old likes to be optically admired. This kid completely understands the situation that he or she is involved in and actually gets pleasure (I can only assume non-sexual, but who knows) from being in porn. Is this then wrong? I would say no as I'm fairly libertarian, but on the other hand, I completely acknowledge that it is impossible to keep track of which kids understand the situation and which don't and the fairly irrelevant freedoms that would result would be completely overshadowed by the far more dangerous other side of the coin. Nonetheless, it's something to think about, if you can get past your moral restraints.

In the end, I'm not advocating the legalization of child porn (although upper teens present a gray area). However, I find it morally reprehensible that pedophiles are treated with such contempt. For someone to simply be attracted to a child does not make him or her a bad person, nor does it mean that he or she will attempt to molest said child. Furthermore, although the possession of child porn is often suspect, it still does not make someone the foul creaton that everyone loves to depict so melodramatically. Child porn is not necessarily the product of coercion or manipulation, especially when talking about the buyer. I wouldn't be arrested for looking at naked paparazzi pictures of some celebrity that were taken illegally, it's silly to arrest someone for mere possession of child porn as well. If they have a hand in producing it or are proven to be a molester, fine, arrest them. If not, it's just some nobody trying to cope with his socially unacceptable fetish without resorting to molestation or rape. Masturbation is a good thing.

Alright, come on then. Have at me. My rep awaits.

[Pete]

I still think that possession is an important factor in something such as child porn. Yes, the main culprits are those who film and produce the porn, and even more so the negligent parents who allow their kids to be thrown into that world. However, porn is a vice, just like drugs. If I'm caught buying cocaine, then I'm guilty of buying drugs and possession of an illegal substance. The same goes for child porn. It's a game of possession. When illegal substances and images are involved, then it becomes a more serious issue.

Clearly though, cocaine is not child porn, nor will looking at child porn cause the same effects as snorting cocaine, but the illegality of both is one in the same.

I do feel though that child porn is much worse though, despite how psychologically developed a child may be. In that same hypothetical situation, Jin, would the 8 year old know the true purpose of those pictures. Yes, they might enjoy being photographed, but are they told that the pictures in question would be used to provide a form of sexual pleasure for adults? Would they have knowledge that they're just a sexual plaything? I don't know how an 8 year old would take that.

Also, I think that a lot of the illegality of child pornography comes from the idea that "if this were to happen in actuality, would it be legally cool." Plus, you're a minor until you're 18. As immature as you might be, you're still, under the law, able to live on your own as an independent being. You could be dumb as shit and naive as anything, but you've still got that right. If you want to sign up for the Marines, you can, just the same as if you want to show off your cooter to the world.

And lastly, to sum up how Meier feels, I'll take a quote from one of your boys in Red, and fit it to a current situation. "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

Basically, we tend to overlook the real horrors of our history, and focus on those that have a direct impact on our lives. Meier is a dad, and knowing that there are pedophiles out there who one day may target his son (God willing they don't), pisses him off to no end, and probably scares the hell out of him. Terrible things that have happened in the past don't mean as much to him because he's got things that he sees as more important. It's a feeling of being violated is that it really is.

I don't know what it's like to be a parent, but I'm sure that if it came down to it, I'd also care a hell of a lot more about the safety of my own children than Auschwitz. You can't change the past, but you can certainly do what you can to create a better future.

[Deserthawk]

Weird how everyone is posting long summaries on why they think its wrong when he simply just ask a yes or no question,

Yes, I agree, child pornography is a disgust to society, ruins peoples live, and the people who look at it should get their @$$ kicked for doing that.

[Fluffy]

No, he didn't ask a yes or no question. He asked for people's views and thoughts.

My view on CP will vary depending on what definition of it you're using. For example, I disagree with some moronic judges and a certain act.

Specifically:

it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.

And:

Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).

This, in my opinion, is just stupid. I'd like to know who it is they're protecting when the minor doesn't exist. I think that this type of "child porn" (i.e., fictional) is perfectly okay. No children are being harmed. I can't see a valid reason for making this illegal.

When it comes to actual children, then I tend to lean more towards agreeing that it should generally stay illegal and it can be varying degrees of acceptability, depending on what kind of porn it is. Nudity, for example, I could see some children of a certain maturity and understanding possibly wanting to do, unlikely as it may be. Consensual sexual acts, if such a thing was to exist, is a little more iffy. Rape, on the other hand, is rape. It really doesn't matter how old someone is; porn depicting actual rape is horrible, and I don't think any sane person would disagree.

I find it disturbing that childeren under the age of 17 have been know to put theirselves out there on the web, making porn, showing everyone their bodies, knowing good and full that it is wrong. Some of which decide, of their own free will, to do that with older men/women. They post their smut all over the enternet with easy VIA webpages and other D/L share programs and some people think it is alright because it is of their own free will.

Apparently, the law doesn't think it's alright.

USATODAY.com - Teen girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

Bet they were scratching their heads on that one.

Hottinger: Law didn't anticipate cell phone photo case (video) | newarkadvocate.com | The Newark Advocate

So, who's to blame? You said it yourself. They know what they're doing. They know that it's "wrong". (Is it really?) There's nobody to blame but the girls themselves.

Meier is a dad, and knowing that there are pedophiles out there who one day may target his son (God willing they don't), pisses him off to no end, and probably scares the hell out of him.

So what is the basis of this fear? That pedophiles are statistically more likely to hurt his son than other people? Because I'm pretty sure black people are statistically more likely to be involved with crime. I'm not going to start hating on them just because I fear that they might try to break into my house and hurt my family.

And last time I checked, Meier himself, as a parent, is statistically more likely to abuse his child than some stranger is. Now, I'm not saying he'd do such a horrible thing. But the chances of some pedophile targeting his son for sexual abuse is extremely small. Hell, the kid's more likely to drown in a pool or die in a car accident. There's something for you to fear. And sorry, I'm too lazy to look up those statistics right now.

[Jin]

However, porn is a vice, just like drugs.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Porn itself is not illegal. The only issue at hand is the child; leave the porn out of it.

but are they told that the pictures in question would be used to provide a form of sexual pleasure for adults? Would they have knowledge that they're just a sexual plaything?

Yes. I said that already. In the hypothetical situation I created, the child is completely aware. When I was eight I knew that older people engaged in sexual acts and had urges. I'm not implying most kids would know the situation as the kid in the hypothetical, but for the former, the kid does know.

Plus, you're a minor until you're 18. As immature as you might be, you're still, under the law, able to live on your own as an independent being. You could be dumb as shit and naive as anything, but you've still got that right. If you want to sign up for the Marines, you can, just the same as if you want to show off your cooter to the world.

That's what I was disputing. I'm aware of the law, thanks. I was pointing out how arbitrary the number is and why pornography of minors isn't so black and white.

And lastly, to sum up how Meier feels, I'll take a quote from one of your boys in Red, and fit it to a current situation. "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

Haha, Stalin strikes again. Although true, that wasn't exactly what I was getting at. He can imagine his child being involved in all the situations above or any similar events that could happen in the future, it's still personal and not a statistic to him. My point was that there are far worse things that could happen to a child than being thought about in a sexual manner. I must point out again that a pedophile isn't automatically a molester.

Fluffy, kudos. We can make this thread interesting still. That's a very good point about the non-existent minors. The way I understand it, it's not even legal to write a story that involves a child in a compromising position, regardless of the existence of said child. This law isn't an attack on molestation, it's an attack on pedophilia in general and really isn't that different than banning fictional gay or lesbian erotica because it's "morally reprehensible". 90% of Japan would be in jail if this same law were in effect there.

[Pete]

Jin, you are right about the Meier situation. Though, I feel that a lot of people mistake pedophile for child molester. It's not completely unwarranted, but it is wrong. Also, yes there is a fine line between action and thought, but wouldn't you still agree that it is essentially wrong to think about having sex with children, or even being physically intimate, with no actual "sex" occurring. It's moreso the fact that there's been an establishment of an unnatural attraction between adult and child. It's one thing to say that you're attracted to another adult, yet it's something completely different to say you're attracted to a 5 year old in that same manner. The latter would make a pedophile seen as an outcast, with that "I don't want them around my child" vibe, because in reality, we fear the unknown more than anything. It's all about the potential of what could happen that makes us afraid of pedophiles, even if they are harmless and insignificant people.

To be honest, I checked the sex offender web listing the other day. There are quite a few rapists, child rapists nonetheless living within a half-mile radius of my home. Now, as reformed and out of jail as they may be (fuck you, legal system), I would still be a little freaked out if I had seen them, with my newfound knowledge.

It might be unfair to look at these people this way, when beforehand, they were just John Doe to me; and now they're so-and-so the rapist or child molester. I feel that pedophiles are in the same vein. Once I knew that someone was a pedophile, I would try not to associate with them, but that's just me.

I think I just summed it up for Fluffy as well. I don't really care what you do in the confines of your own home, so long as innocent children aren't being whacked off to. The difference between black people and pedophiles is that black people don't enjoy crime. Not every black person likes to commit crimes. Every pedophile, does however, like children. That's just something that you can't deny. Now, I'm not saying that every pedophile is a sexual predator, but I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable sitting with my kid in a room full of black people than in a room full of pedophiles.

Lastly, I want to reiterate that a lot of it has to do with potential and stigma. By admitting that you're a pedophile, Fluffy, you've already associated yourself with an evil. You seem like a reasonable enough person, and someone who is mostly nonviolent, and you may even be a good guy in general, but still, I wouldn't in a million years allow you to babysit for me. That's the stigma of pedophilia. It makes it impossible to discern just what could happen. Maybe that makes me a terrible person, but I'd rather be an asshole than even think about putting anyone in my family at risk.

[Fluffy]

All fair enough. Although I don't agree that an attraction to minors is inherently evil, as long as you're not saying that a person is evil (or bad, however you wish to word it) simply for having said attraction, then that opinion doesn't bother me. Seems like you do at least have the opinion that it is morally wrong to have the attraction, but really, I don't care enough, and I doubt I'd change your mind on that matter.

I do wonder though. You mentioned innocent children "being whacked off to". Is that merely against child pornography? All forms of depictions of minors? Thoughts of actual children? Fantasies of completely thought up, nonexistent children? Where do you draw the line for what should be admissible? Not that it changes anything. I ask simply out of curiousity.

I can see where a person would have a problem with actual child porn. Children were most likely exploited, sometimes even abused, for such pictures to be produced. But I can't see any logical reason for being against anything else.

You're right that not all black people commit crime. But if you really wanted to take my analogy for what it was, then the conclusion is that neither do pedophiles. And I know you weren't contending that, but I'm simply saying, hating a group of people because of what some of the people in that group do is not that cool. But if you simply wish to choose not to associate with them, then by all means, don't. We all choose what kind of company we wish to have.


Back on the topic of child pornography. I do believe that you're right, Jin, that fictional writing involving the sexual abuse of minors (tricky phrase there, "sexual abuse") has been deemed illegal. That, coupled with drawings of minors being made illegal, is very worrying to me. I'd like to know the opinion of others on that matter. Do you think these two things should be illegal? And why?

I've already stated I don't believe it should be illegal, and I expect that, if nothing else, the U.S. Supreme Court, should it make it that far, will probably stand by their ruling in 2002 (and again in 2004) that these things are protected under the First Amendment.

I also believe that it will be a mistake to take away one of the only legal, unharmful venues with which some pedophiles handle their desires.

It seems clear to me that their goal with making these things illegal isn't to protect children, but instead to incriminate the thoughts of pedophiles. No children are being harmed in the production of either of the two.

When throughts are being made criminal, I think we're heading in the wrong direction.

Your thoughts?

[Pete]

Yeah, I'm pretty much going with the whole "Hate the sin, love the sinner" ideology when it comes to this. I'm not a fan of pedophilia in the least, but I'm not going to hate you because of it. Now, if something were to happen between you and a child, then it would be a different story. I believe that actions speak louder than words, and until a pedophile is found to be abusing children, they're just deemed by me as "kinda sketchy".

I'm torn on the idea of pornographic cartoons and stories though. On one hand no child in particular is being harmed, but on the other hand, it is the same essence of children in general that is cause for concern. Random unnamed child could just as well be Meier's kid for all intents and purposes. It's something that is hard to say because it's about an illegal act that borders more along the lines of disturbing. Now personally, I think that it's wrong because of those reasons, but if you were to take a fairly liberal stance, it would have to fall under the grounds of free speech.

Then again, you could take the Grand Theft Auto series and look at it in the same light. It depicts pretty much every crime that you can commit, yet no children are ever shown in the games (despite references made to the past), nor are children ever killed or even able to be killed. There's just something about being able to kill a child in those games that would be just far too sick and sadistic, and ultimately downright disturbing. I feel that pornography depicting children would be very similar.

Just because you can do anything you want, and say or write anything you want, doesn't mean that it is always appropriate or even morally justifiable to do so. A lot of the problem with pedophilia and child pornography comes from the idea that adults are supposed to protect, teach and guide children into adulthood. To take this instinctual notion and to twist it around to the point where the children are being exploited and used as sex objects just seems like a misuse of power and authority, even in a pornographic situation, where it would be deemed acceptable within the confines of the porno itself.

[Jin]

Don't misunderstand me, Pete. I think it's perfectly normal for someone, especially a parent, to be wary of pedophiles. That's just human nature. But in the same way I'm wary of the guy wearing a turban on an airplane, it's important not to let inklings get the better of you. Now I know I'm often critical of rationalism, but it has its place and purpose and in dealing with social stigmas such as this, I think it's important to keep a clear head. Not to say you aren't.

Regarding the fictional child porn, I'll see your Stalinist quote and raise you another. "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don't let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" To tell someone that they cannot create their own fictional child pornography is, in essence, an attempt to regulate ideas and morality. It's one thing to outlaw actions that the public deems immoral, it's an entirely different thing to outlaw personal thoughts that are likewise deemed immoral. Artistic expression is an integral part of free thought and in my less than humble opinion, free thought is the foundation of the democratic process. When the government is regulating free thought, there's a problem.

On a side note regarding your GTA comment, Pete: There was a time when you could kill children in video games. Fallout is a good example. Fallout 1 and 2 allowed you to kill children, but both were made before gaming was in the same light it is today, before the moral stigmas of the day necessarily had to be applied. You can't kill children in Fallout 3.

[Fluffy]

I'm going to quote you in parts, so I apologize in advance if I take anything out of context. Keep in mind, much of my post is also speculation.

There's just something about being able to kill a child in those games that would be just far too sick and sadistic, and ultimately downright disturbing. I feel that pornography depicting children would be very similar.

Yes, most people probably would consider killing a child in those games to be those things. I'm sure there'd be an outcry to have it removed, and would the company that made it comply? Absolutely. As a business, they know what is and isn't good for them.

However, would it be illegal to put the ability to kill children in those games? I believe that, no, nobody would be punished with a court sentence. But put the ability to "sexually abuse" a child in the game, and I think you'd have at least one person standing trial, and very possibly serving time.

Is it so horrifying to have children in sexual situations that it's that much worse than murder?

Just because you can do anything you want, and say or write anything you want, doesn't mean that it is always appropriate or even morally justifiable to do so.

I agree. But should it be illegal? I tend to think not.

A lot of the problem with pedophilia and child pornography comes from the idea that adults are supposed to protect, teach and guide children into adulthood. To take this instinctual notion and to twist it around to the point where the children are being exploited and used as sex objects just seems like a misuse of power and authority, even in a pornographic situation, where it would be deemed acceptable within the confines of the porno itself.

I'm sorry for being picky about words, but please keep in mind that pedophilia is not synonymous with child sexual abuse. This here seems to imply that you believe pedophiles simply wish to twist around the notion of protecting, teaching, and guiding children into adulthood, only to exploit and use children as sex objects. You may believe that if you wish, but I assure you that it's far from the truth. There is no reason that someone cannot be a pedophile and wish to have a relationship with a minor and still protect, teach, and guide them. Don't adults who are with other adults do something very similar?

[Koda]

Is it so horrifying to have children in sexual situations that it's that much worse than murder?

I agree. But should it be illegal? I tend to think not.

I'm sorry for being picky about words, but please keep in mind that pedophilia is not synonymous with child sexual abuse. This here seems to imply that you believe pedophiles simply wish to twist around the notion of protecting, teaching, and guiding children into adulthood, only to exploit and use children as sex objects. You may believe that if you wish, but I assure you that it's far from the truth. There is no reason that someone cannot be a pedophile and wish to have a relationship with a minor and still protect, teach, and guide them. Don't adults who are with other adults do something very similar?

I'm not going to go into great details, simply because I don't want to be accused of 'bashing'. But to answer your question, yes it is horrifying to have children in sexual situations, just as it is as horrifying of murdering children. These are innocent babies!!! How can you, "Think not?"!!! Oh yes I know why Fluffy. And anyone else that has read certain journals would know as well.
It infuritates me how a pedophile can think that exploiting children is okay and that it should be legal!?! And for their own sick pleasure!!
As a mother, if anyone would have ever come near my child or done the things that 'some' pedophiles think of doing to little children, they would never have lived to see the next day!

I'll leave it at that. The more I think of the things that sick S.O.B.'s do to little kids, young teenagers, etc......I'd love to take part in the "To Catch A Pedophile". You can also refer to my post on this thread from 9-5-08 and get a better feel on my thoughts. Good day all.

[Pete]

Sorry for the delay, but to answer your question Fluffy, I feel that they're equally reprehensible. Like Koda references, it's all about innocence. A child, even as much of a pain in the ass as they might be, is still innocent to the evils in the world. They might play GTAIV and see the killings and all of the crap that you can do, but it'll be just something you do in the game, because it tells you you have to. To them there is only fairy tale good and evil, where the knight saves the princess and yadda yadda.

They have no idea that there are sexual predators, rapists, drug/dealers addicts or any other scum out there; and it should remain that way for as long as they are still children. A pedophile is someone who wants to rob a child of their innocence by putting them into sexual situations, whether or not the child wants to, or knows what's happening.

Going back to videogames though, and innocence. On one hand, it's a videogame, a veritable fantasy world, so why couldn't you just pop in GTA4, steal a van and press a button to lure kids into it? I completely understand that. But why on God's green earth would anyone want to do such a thing? People who do shit like that in real life have serious problems, and should be tortured until they die from old age. However, if you're gonna do something like that in a videogame, it's equally disturbing. It's one thing to take a tank and just roll down the streets of Liberty City, but it's taking it to a whole other level to go sexually abusing kids.

On top of that, I'll reiterate that innocence is what makes children just that. You're not a child because you're young in years; you're a child because you have no knowledge of the world and no knowledge of true evil. To sexually abuse anyone, is to rob them of so much more than simply killing them. To do this to a child is so much worse, because at least an adult will hopefully have the knowledge and understanding of what happened. Without such understanding, it has to be that much more difficult and earth-shattering for a child to endure.

I still think that child pornography, even if it's cartoon images, isn't particularly good. Seeing Lisa fellate Bart Simpson can't be an attractive sight, no matter how you look at it. If you really want to whack off to it, then go ahead, but I think that would just lead to other problems down the line.

And about me mixing my words. If you want to protect, teach or guide children into adulthood, they could join a program for that. A pedophile is someone who harbors an attraction for children. Someone in the Big Brothers/Sisters program is someone who wants to make a difference in a child's life WITHOUT finding them attractive or having any sexual desire for them in the least. As for my own personal relationships, they've never had anything to with teaching or guiding anyone into adulthood. They've been pretty equal with respect for the other person as an adult capable of their own decisions.

Now, if you're finding yourself sexually attracted to kids, then I'd say there's a serious problem.


And Jin, you are right. It is wrong of me to lump all pedophiles in the same group as sex abusers, however, it's not wrong of me to be wary. I can't help that; it's my nature.

You also bring up a good point on the idea of outlawing thoughts. Clearly you could never do this. We do have freedom of speech for a reason. However, there is a line that is crossed when the images go from "random kid" to a specific child. It's further crossed if said images are made public. However, it's not a crime to whack off to any mental images you may conjure up. Once those pictures become actual photographs though, then it's a serious problem though.

[Fluffy]

But to answer your question, yes it is horrifying to have children in sexual situations, just as it is as horrifying of murdering children. These are innocent babies!!! How can you, "Think not?"!!!

Out of context. I was not talking about children themselves in sexual situations or being murdered. I'm talking about the situation of them being in media such as video games or drawings. So, no, these are not "innocent babies". They're non-existent.

My question was also not if it was horrifying. The question was is if it's so much worse than to see them murdered. The question was also rhetorical. If you're interested in knowing my opinion, and if it wasn't obvious; I don't think it is.

And just to point out, your "How can you, 'Think not?'!!!" is out of context as well. Please see again what I was saying that I think not. I was saying that I don't think that drawings or writings should be illegal.

It infuritates me how a pedophile can think that exploiting children is okay and that it should be legal!?! And for their own sick pleasure!!

Oh, please. Pedophiles, at least the ones I know, do not think that exploiting children is okay. We hate it just as much as you do. You think we'd like to see the people we love being hurt or used? I know it's hard, but you should maybe sometimes consider that maybe others are actually telling the truth, even when it conflicts with your own truth. You're free to believe what you want, but what I believe is that what I see in your post is quite wrong. Your concept of a pedophile is very narrow. Anyone who knows how I and many pedophiles are with children knows you're way off.

By the way, they don't even target pedophiles on "To Catch a Predator".

A pedophile is someone who wants to rob a child of their innocence by putting them into sexual situations, whether or not the child wants to, or knows what's happening.

I honestly have nothing more to say to this and I've already said. A pedophile is merely someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. That's it. You're adding a lot into it.

why couldn't you just pop in GTA4, steal a van and press a button to lure kids into it? I completely understand that. But why on God's green earth would anyone want to do such a thing? People who do shit like that in real life have serious problems

And I'd say that's equally applicaple to anyone who pops in GTA4 and goes around killing random innocent people.

On top of that, I'll reiterate that innocence is what makes children just that. You're not a child because you're young in years; you're a child because you have no knowledge of the world and no knowledge of true evil.

So, by this logic, someone of 30 who has no knowledge of the world and no knowledge of "evil" is a child, but one of 8 who knows these things isn't? I'm not buying it.

To sexually abuse anyone, is to rob them of so much more than simply killing them.

My opinion differs. And before you go reading into that; no, I don't think it's okay to sexually abuse someone. But I don't consider it worse than taking their life.

If you want to protect, teach or guide children into adulthood, they could join a program for that. A pedophile is someone who harbors an attraction for children. Someone in the Big Brothers/Sisters program is someone who wants to make a difference in a child's life WITHOUT finding them attractive or having any sexual desire for them in the least.

Yet my point was that they are not mutually exclusive. A pedophile can have an attraction to children and still do those things. He or she is no less helpful than the others.

As for my own personal relationships, they've never had anything to with teaching or guiding anyone into adulthood.

I said similar. So, if your person of interest didn't know something, and you do, you're not going to teach them? You don't have different points of view to offer? Nobody has all the answers.