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!!!!!

[Josh_R]

I to like the rest of you agree that this is sickening...I wonder to myself some times how does these kinds of f*ucked up thoughts get in someone's.

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.

Koda the legal punishment for child porn and molestation may not be lengthy and they may not get the legal punishment they should...But murderer's and thieves in prison have a code and it's is that rapist, and child molestor's are the lowest and should not be allowed to live...So in turn they kill them unless the cild molestors ask to be isolated they are killed and even if they do ask they are sometimes told no...

[OnOneRyder]

But murderer's and thieves in prison have a code and it's is that rapist, and child molestor's are the lowest and should not be allowed to live...So in turn they kill them unless the cild molestors ask to be isolated they are killed and even if they do ask they are sometimes told no...

This coming from all the time you spent locked up right? Or sorry, all the movies hollywood has released. These forum's have gone so downhill. What used to be part of the general forums has made it's way in here under as though there is anything intellectual about it. Child porn is bad, anyone who likes it is bad, it's bad for the children and it's bad for society...this thread is bad.

[Meier Link]

I to like the rest of you agree that this is sickening...I wonder to myself some times how does these kinds of f*ucked up thoughts get in someone's.

Kisuke, if you actually took the time to read a few posts in this thread you would know that not all people are in agreance that it is wrong. You wouldn't even have to read the whole thread to see that there is people who disagree with the whole "this is wrong" general statement. Given though I am one of the people that think it is wrong but I thought I would point this out.

Koda the legal punishment for child porn and molestation may not be lengthy and they may not get the legal punishment they should...But murderer's and thieves in prison have a code and it's is that rapist, and child molestor's are the lowest and should not be allowed to live...So in turn they kill them unless the cild molestors ask to be isolated they are killed and even if they do ask they are sometimes told no...

Do you have a valid source for this information? I am sure if you actually look up the number of pedifiles in prison you would probably be shocked at the number of them. Also if you do a local look up of sexual preditors in your area I think you will find quite a few, which means the ones that served time for their crimes made it out alive.

Also I am curious if you are trying to group pedifiles and rapists into the same classification?

By OnOneRyder
This coming from all the time you spent locked up right? Or sorry, all the movies hollywood has released. These forum's have gone so downhill. What used to be part of the general forums has made it's way in here under as though there is anything intellectual about it. Child porn is bad, anyone who likes it is bad, it's bad for the children and it's bad for society...this thread is bad.

You are complaining about the "low quality of posts" in this area of the forum and yet you make a "low quality post" to try to proove your point? Did you take the time to read this thread or just the last few posts?

The whole middle part of your post is uncalled for and is completely off of topic all together, if you want to discuss how the ID forum has gone down hill then open a thread so it can be discussed, I will be sure to move it to General chat. If you care to disccuss this any further with me then VM / PM me.

I advise anyone else to avoid responding to the flame baiting in the above post.

[GypsyElder]

Do you have a valid source for this information? I am sure if you actually look up the number of pedifiles in prison you would probably be shocked at the number of them. Also if you do a local look up of sexual preditors in your area I think you will find quite a few, which means the ones that served time for their crimes made it out alive.

Also I am curious if you are trying to group pedifiles and rapists into the same classification?

I'm guessing this is where you were going.

Pedo does not equal rapist or molester.

Pedophile is a word used for an adult who has al sexual attraction to children, whether he acts on it or not. Every child molester is not a pedophile, and every pedophile is not a child molester.

Rapist is a person who rapes another person, some sort of sexual act, without consent or if the person is underage.

Molester I guess can be thrown in too, it's a vague word and can mean almost anything you want it to. It refers to an adult who has sexual contact or penetration with a child.

[Zargabaath]

As with many others, I wonder what Phantom was expecting here. Was he trying to weed out those who do like child porn? This thread does seem to be a bit needless, as we are all in accordance. Now for some devil's advocate (I liked the movie too ).


The first scenario or question, whatever it may be, will only pertain to the U.S. as I don't know about this "issue" in other countries.

The U.S. state or federal attornies charge people for statutory rape, because the child (around 14-17) is not "mature" enough to decide if they really want to have sex. Let it be noted the brain does not stop developing and is fully matured till the age of late 23, 24, or early 25 years of age. At the same time, U.S. attornies love to charge minors as adults in murder cases because they were "mature" enough to make the decision. This is clear hypocrisy with the U.S. government just wanting to punish people. Either minors around 14 to 17 are mature enough or they are not. They can make the laws concerning minors absolute or a case-by-case situation; I fear though cases dealing about statutory rape, they would try to always deam the minor not mature enough but in murder, homicide, rape, etc as an adult. The government, at its convienance, finds minors to be mature enough, so could not a 14-17 make a rational decision to have sex and/or put up there own porn site, be in the porn industry, etc. Some people find young people sexually attractive, which I will be discussing next, so how it be bad for them to pursuit their happiness with a minor who is rationally making the decision to have sex with the person or for the person to watch the porn, some activity that no one's rights would be violated?

Scientists have been studying whether or not there is a gay gene; that people are born being gay, that they are attractive to the same sex. In other situations, people sometimes turn gay, bi-sexual, or even straight (maybe) during their life. What a person's sexual orientation is their business and we should not treat them any differenlty for it. My high school psychology teacher once worked with people who were child molestors, child rapists, etc. What a lot of them told him was that in order for them to truly stop they would have to be fully castrated cause they won't be able to stop. What happens in these types of peopled during their life is a sexual arrestment, where what they find sexually attractive is stunted at a certain age never developing (i.e. they like very young people). As they get older what they find sexually attractive does not age as well. Just as any person cannot change what they find sexually attractive, neither can they. Should we hate, despise, loathe, and/or riducule them for something that was out of their control, just as it could be with the gay gene? What about they are with a person who made the decision to be with them, should we criminalize and destroy their happiness?


People please remember the devil's advocate and I'm not talking about the movie.

[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!!!

[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.

[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.