DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: William Wallace on July 13, 2010, 11:42:27 AM
-
John Stagliano runs an adult film company and has been charged with violating federal obscenity laws. If he's convicted he could go to prison for life.
You can read an overview of the case here (https://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/the-trial-of-john-stagliano).
I'm primarily interested in discussing the subjective nature of the charges. For example, how exactly do you define "obscenity"?
The judge said that the jury will have to use something called the Miller Test (https://reason.com/archives/2010/07/13/closed-court-miller-time-and-j).
the Miller test famously offers three prongs on which to distinguish obscenity from protected First Amendment expression. In order for a work to be obscene all three Milller requirements must be met...According to Miller, for a work to be obscene, it must first and foremost violate community standards. But despite adult stores selling hardcore porn of all kinds all over Washington, D.C., there has not been an obscenity prosecution here in more than two decades. Washington is not a community that seems to be at all concerned that adult films are being watched by local adults...Another prong of the Miller test is whether "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
What are "community standards"? And what constitutes "literary, artistic, political or scientific value"? Those sound like moving targets, and I can't believe they may be enough to lock somebody up for life.
Can anybody with legal training educate me?
-
In the end, it's legislating subjective morality. The best response can be "the community majority feels this way, thus it's the law" which can obviously give way to some pretty horrible laws.
-
In the end, it's legislating subjective morality. The best response can be "the community majority feels this way, thus it's the law" which can obviously give way to some pretty horrible laws.
this
-
This was one of the few areas where I thought Obama would be an improvement over his dim-witted predecessor. Unfortunately, as we all know they're one and the same. This really doesn't surprise me much, but I had hoped that they'd stop with these stupid prosecutions.
Anyhoo, thankfully he'll probably get off in DC. The federales prosecute these guys all the time and rarely get convictions. Normally, they'll order the movies shipped to the most wholesome and upstanding Bible-belt town they can dream up so they can prosecute with a sympathetic jury, and even then they rarely get convictions. Truth be told, while they'd love to make an example out of him, they really just want his money. They'll prosecute over and over hoping to bankrupt him, and if they win some cases, they'll seek forfeiture of all of his goodies. It's really a lot of bullshit.
On a sad note, Paul Little (Max Hardcore) is currently 18 months into his 46 month sentence for basically the same thing. Even the jury that convicted him thought it was bullshit. He actually considers it a victory because what they really wanted was his house in the Hollywood Hills [kick ass place].
-
That makes me fume with rage.
Based on Max Extreme 4, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was underage
Fuck our government in the fucking neck.
Lets give these dickwads moar power guyz, sounds like a fantastic idea.
-
Yea, that was by far the worst judgement I've heard in a long time. By that logic, all asian porn should be illegal.
-
Yes. Yes, it should be.
-
Yes. Yes, it should be.
But then there'd be no tenticle porn, then what would Volk do when Rina wasn't there?
-
Many eons ago ogrejedi started a thread in P/R (probably dt.net at that time still), asking the question whether CGI underage porn is illegal or not. I guess that conviction kinda answers the question.
rumborak
-
Yes. Yes, it should be.
Silent Fox, I presume? :lol
My take on this is that everyone involved in the production of the films were consenting adults, so does it really matter whether the actresses were "portrayed" underage?
-
The vagueness of porn-related laws and the serious consequences that come as a result of enforcing those laws really makes for a bad combo.
I'm not against the government enforcing laws regarding pornography when those laws are actually clear and well known to the people creating and viewing the material. However, I'd guess that most people view internet porn. And, given the random, "user-uploaded" nature of the material that many sites host, I also wouldn't be surprised if most or all of the porn online is illegal-- for copyright reasons, or because the actresses weren't old enough, or because the actresses were portraying younger people, or because the video is from a country with different laws, etc.
Who keeps track of all that, though? Who knows what the consequences for creating a video that violates "moral standards" are? What about people who view videos from Europe or Japan-- or stumble upon them on streaming sites-- where the age requirements are different? What about hentai-- which seems to be legal and available for sale in nearly every DVD store and which seems to include (albeit drawn) high-school age girls performing sexual acts as a rule-- What are the consequences for people who sell and view that? Are there consequences that are enforced, or does that only happen when the government wants to make an example of some unlucky sap? Frankly, I don't know, and I'm sure most people don't, either. And yet people who most likely don't know what they're doing is wrong get put on sex offender lists and are humiliated in front of their friends and family for this stuff, even when many of these people are a far cry from the true culprits: those who use and exploit and psychologically scar adolescents and children.
This information needs to be made available to people, and the government shouldn't just punish people for things when they've failed completely to draw clear guidelines for the citizenry. I guess to sum it up: regular people going down because they're ignorant of their rights or because what their rights are is too vague is never a good thing, and especially not good for a country that's supposed to value liberty.
-
Yes. Yes, it should be.
Because prosecuting thought crimes will make us all safer.
-
I think he was referring to asian pron.
-
I think he was referring to asian pron.
Assuming no one involved is underage, why should it be illegal, as long as all parties consent?
-
Assuming no one involved is underage, why should it be illegal, as long as all parties consent?
Do the octopuses consent?
-
I think he was referring to asian pron.
Assuming no one involved is underage, why should it be illegal, as long as all parties consent?
The implication here, if I'm getting it right, is that most countries in Asia have different age restrictions than us. I think in Japan actresses can be as young as 16. Meanwhile, most people get their pRon from various imageboards/streaming sites, where no one really knows the source or how old the actors are. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still illegal to view porn from other countries that have different restrictions than us if the actors/actresses are under our age requirement.
-
Yes. Yes, it should be.
You know a little about the legal profession. Any thoughts on my op?
-
The implication here, if I'm getting it right, is that most countries in Asia have different age restrictions than us. I think in Japan actresses can be as young as 16. Meanwhile, most people get their pRon from various imageboards/streaming sites, where no one really knows the source or how old the actors are. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still illegal to view porn from other countries that have different restrictions than us if the actors/actresses are under our age requirement.
Japan actually has strict and well enforced laws on kiddy porn. The ladies are 18, but due to the different cultural mores, they certainly try to exhibit youthful appearances. For the legal part of it, point of origin doesn't matter. Any American citizen is barred from possessing child pornography, regardless of where it came from or even where they are when viewing it.
-
Today was the first day of testimony in the trial. There's an update here (https://reason.com/archives/2010/07/14/porn-over-national-security-vi/). It appears that the judge is making quite difficult for the press and public to find out what's going on.
-
Did someone say tentacles?
-
WW you don't understand. Its HIS courtroom.
-
I think he was referring to asian pron.
Assuming no one involved is underage, why should it be illegal, as long as all parties consent?
The implication here, if I'm getting it right, is that most countries in Asia have different age restrictions than us. I think in Japan actresses can be as young as 16. Meanwhile, most people get their pRon from various imageboards/streaming sites, where no one really knows the source or how old the actors are. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still illegal to view porn from other countries that have different restrictions than us if the actors/actresses are under our age requirement.
I thought the idea was that Asian porn consists almost entirely of actresses who look underage by American standards, and they're prosecuting the guy because the video portrays underage girls, even though it is known that the actresses themselves are over 18.
-
I think he was referring to asian pron.
Assuming no one involved is underage, why should it be illegal, as long as all parties consent?
The implication here, if I'm getting it right, is that most countries in Asia have different age restrictions than us. I think in Japan actresses can be as young as 16. Meanwhile, most people get their pRon from various imageboards/streaming sites, where no one really knows the source or how old the actors are. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still illegal to view porn from other countries that have different restrictions than us if the actors/actresses are under our age requirement.
I thought the idea was that Asian porn consists almost entirely of actresses who look underage by American standards, and they're prosecuting the guy because the video portrays underage girls, even though it is known that the actresses themselves are over 18.
Well, as controversial as it may be, if the actresses involved are 18 and over, I don't consider it to be Child Pornography, despite how they are depicted. I don't approve of it being depicted in that fashion, mind you, but if they are adults and willingly consent to it, then as much as I disagree with it, its not illegal. At least in my eyes.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I guess I would compare it to depictions of murder or other crimes in films. Its acting, it isn't reality.
-
Well, here's where it gets even more bizarre. As I recall, SCOTUS shot down the provision that said adults depicting children can be considered CP. However, a slightly different incarnation of SCOTUS actually did tacitly decide (decline the petition) that a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting could. So the way it works is that a real actress can portray an underage girl getting the high hard one, but an animated underage girl getting boffed is illegal. And yes, there actually are people who've been convicted under such circumstances.
What the fuck kinda sense does that make?
-
Well, here's where it gets even more bizarre. As I recall, SCOTUS shot down the provision that said adults depicting children can't be considered CP. However, a slightly different incarnation of SCOTUS actually did tacitly decide (decline the petition) that a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting could. So the way it works is that a real actress can portray an underage girl getting the high hard one, but an animated underage girl getting boffed is illegal. And yes, there actually are people who've been convicted under such circumstances.
What the fuck kinda sense does that make?
Uh, none as far as I can tell. I don't approve of drawn pornography, nor drawn CP, but that's a bit... silly.
-
The uk has recently changed its laws so that drawings of people who look look like they could be considered under-age now essentially constitutes CP. Which is idiotic to be quite frank.
-
Good! Now those stupid "Love is..." memes will be considered kiddie porn and go away.
(https://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs165.snc4/37569_1351813197313_1290888855_30871053_6942291_n.jpg)
-
AGH! MY EYES! Government protect me.
-
Good! Now those stupid "Love is..." memes will be considered kiddie porn and go away.
(https://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs165.snc4/37569_1351813197313_1290888855_30871053_6942291_n.jpg)
I've never seen that meme before.
-
"meme" is probably not the right word. But there's all these pictures with "Love is..." and the little cherubs. Or they would be cherubs if they had wings. As it is, they're just naked children which is ZOMG KIDDIE PORN!!
-
Good! Now those stupid "Love is..." memes will be considered kiddie porn and go away.
(https://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs165.snc4/37569_1351813197313_1290888855_30871053_6942291_n.jpg)
Reported.
-
I don't see any genital parts. I don't think it's going to be considered porn if they exist in the barby universe.
-
I never understood the allure of those comic strips. Then again, I don't think I was the target audience.
rumborak
-
in china distrubuting porn material of any form is illegal and supposed to get punished though they rarely get punished by government. that's one reason for the conflits between chinese government and google. the major search engine websites in china are all under severe surveillance, many key words are sifted.
-
All the charges were dismissed. https://reason.com/blog/2010/07/16/reasontv-all-charges-dismissed
-
That's good to hear.
-
I'll bet somebody a dollar that within 18 months he's on trial again, but this time in some small town in Pennsylvania.
-
in china distrubuting porn material of any form is illegal and supposed to get punished though they rarely get punished by government. that's one reason for the conflits between chinese government and google. the major search engine websites in china are all under severe surveillance, many key words are sifted.
Walk into any media store in China and you'll probably find plenty of porn. In every store I went to that sold cd's and dvd's porn was readily available, often displayed right at the front counter in plain sight. Makes North America look like the censored place.
-
Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.
I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
-
Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.
I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Because its easier.
-
Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.
I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Because its easier.
That still doesn't make it right.
It's easier to download a new album rather than buy it. Does it make it right?
It's easier to jump off a cliff if all your friends are doing it, rather than explain that you don't want to jump off a cliff. Does it make it right?
-
He wasn't justifying it.
-
Well, thank God for that, although it was stupid that they were charging him in the first place.
I think the Government should just stay out of people's private lives. Don't they have real criminals to charge? Why throw a guy in jail for having sex on camera, when there are murderers walking the streets?
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Because its easier.
I never justified it by saying it was easier. I was saying the government goes after those kind of people BECAUSE its easier. Why go after criminals when you have to actually *work* to catch them, when you can just pick on others that aren't really doing any harm at all? Come on, you can't really expect the government to put effort into finding dangerous criminals, now can you?
That still doesn't make it right.
It's easier to download a new album rather than buy it. Does it make it right?
It's easier to jump off a cliff if all your friends are doing it, rather than explain that you don't want to jump off a cliff. Does it make it right?
-
By the way, who's actually suing these people?
-
By the way, who's actually suing these people?
The DoJ is prosecuting them for violating [a starkly bullshit] federal law.
-
The department of justice sues people? Isn't that a conflict of interest?
-
Nobody is suing anybody. The DOJ is prosecuting people.
-
Obscenity, like beauty, is surely in the eye of the beholder.
-
Obscenity, like beauty, is surely in the eye of the beholder.
Or maybe prosecuting people for obscenity is stupid and Orwellian in the first place?
-
Obscenity, like beauty, is surely in the eye of the beholder.
Or maybe prosecuting people for obscenity is stupid and Orwellian in the first place?
That too.
-
There was one obscenity case that was on trial ( I don't remember specifics) but they actually used google search records to see if the act was within community standards. They had found that so many people in this town had actually searched for this certain act through google, that it was deemed within the community standard, even if it was taboo publicly. I think that is an interesting tidbit there. I learned this in my Media Law and Ethics class. We had a whole section on obscenity and the Miller Test.
-
There was one obscenity case that was on trial ( I don't remember specifics) but they actually used google search records to see if the act was within community standards. They had found that so many people in this town had actually searched for this certain act through google, that it was deemed within the community standard, even if it was taboo publicly. I think that is an interesting tidbit there. I learned this in my Media Law and Ethics class. We had a whole section on obscenity and the Miller Test.
How do you do that? I'd love to see how frequent people search things.
-
I would say that if you're convicting people based on Google search results, you might as well call it quits and decide the society to be failed.
rumborak
-
There was one obscenity case that was on trial ( I don't remember specifics) but they actually used google search records to see if the act was within community standards. They had found that so many people in this town had actually searched for this certain act through google, that it was deemed within the community standard, even if it was taboo publicly. I think that is an interesting tidbit there. I learned this in my Media Law and Ethics class. We had a whole section on obscenity and the Miller Test.
How do you do that? I'd love to see how frequent people search things.
https://www.google.com/trends
-
I would say that if you're convicting people based on Google search results, you might as well call it quits and decide the society to be failed.
rumborak
No the google search showed that so many people of the community were looking for this certain thing. Therefore it was seen as normative and not some obscene thing. They couldn't convict the person because everyone else was doing it so it was a community standard.
-
So people can essentially be convicted on the basis of being different?
-
So people can essentially be convicted on the basis of being different?
Correct, which is why I have no faith in this country and its legislators. People ask me why I don't say The Pledge, this is one of the many reasons.
-
Adami, we are talking about obscenity LAWS. Being different is not obscenity. Do you say ignorant comments like this to just start something? Child porn is considered obscenity. I guess we shouldn't convict those "different" people who love that stuff? Not sure who you are trying to defend here.
-
Adami, we are talking about obscenity LAWS. Being different is not obscenity. Do you say ignorant comments like this to just start something? Child porn is considered obscenity. I guess we shouldn't convict those "different" people who love that stuff? Not sure who you are trying to defend here.
Dd you even read the thread? A person's conviction was based on whether people in the town google searched the same thing as he did. That's what got him off. Basically if he was different from everyone else, he would have been convicted. That's being convicted based on being different, and is completely wrong.
-
Being different is not obscenity.
No the google search showed that so many people of the community were looking for this certain thing. Therefore it was seen as normative and not some obscene thing.
Being different is not always obscene, but being obscene is by definition (well, by legal definition at least) being different. Obscenity laws are such bullshit.
-
Being different is not obscenity.
No the google search showed that so many people of the community were looking for this certain thing. Therefore it was seen as normative and not some obscene thing.
Being different is not always obscene, but being obscene is by definition (well, by legal definition at least) being different. Obscenity laws are such bullshit.
Perhaps they are, but maybe they aren't. Do you think child porn should be allowed? Because the only thing keeping it illegal are obscenity laws. Same thing with beastiality and necrophilia.
-
Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?
-
Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?
Like what? The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution. I strongly disagree with censorship of most things. But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things. Especially when it is actually harming other people.
One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn. Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing. It's a really slippery slope.
I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.
-
wtf? You seem to making both the argument that all obscenity laws are justified because some of the things they make illegal, and that child porn is only illegal because of obscenity laws. The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others. This can't be said for porn or many of the other things that obscenity laws make illegal (like normal porn in the OP).
-
wtf? You seem to making both the argument that all obscenity laws are justified because some of the things they make illegal, and that child porn is only illegal because of obscenity laws. The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others. This can't be said for porn or many of the other things that obscenity laws make illegal (like normal porn in the OP).
The whole point is community standards. Different states can have different obscenity laws based on their communities and what is deemed a standard or not harmful to the overall population. Is it loaded? Yeah sure it can get abused. But its either throw the baby out with the bath water, or let everything be legal. Because if you make certain things legal and certain things not legal, you know some kind of logical explanation for why it is or isn't. It can't just come out of nowhere. That's why the Miller test is at least some kind of method to determine what is deemed obscene and what is not. Using Google search records is just a tool to help in the process.
Can you name one obscenity law that you actually disagree with and wish it was repealed?
So I guess my answer is yes, I think the obscenity laws are justified because it is actually protecting rights of people. Unless there is a complete overhaul of the laws and the way they get written, I don't see this changing.
Obscenity laws do not make porn illegal btw. Pornography always gets protected under free speech. Because it has been deemed over and over again to be of use to society. Even if in some backwoods super religious area tries to ban it, it can easily get overturned in the court system if the people want to follow through with an appeal.
-
Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?
Like what? The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution. I strongly disagree with censorship of most things. But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things. Especially when it is actually harming other people.
One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn. Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing. It's a really slippery slope.
I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.
If anything, the PROTECT Act does nothing but HARM children. Say you are a thief. You live in a society where you will be punished the same no matter what you steal. In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar. Both would be just as easy to steal, but one is much more valuable to you. Which one are you going to steal? Since you will be punished the same for both, you might as well go with something that benefits you more, that being the golden bar. The same could be said about drawn "child pornography" and real child pornography. Given the choice, wouldn't someone want the real thing? They will be punished severely for both... The PROTECT Act in my eyes has done more harm than good.
Another problem with PROTECT:
Okay, so all visual depictions of kids are illegal. so the above scenario plays out. Now let's flip that around. Child porn is still illegal, but drawn porn is not. Say we promoted drawn child porn (in an extreme scenario), and say that we encouraged pedophiles and the like to view drawn porn as opposed to the real thing. They go to the drawn porn and there is less of a demand for real child porn, therefor saving children from being exploited. But with the first scenario (which is how the law is set up currently) , there would be a higher demand for real child porn because of the penalties of drawn porn.
Am I making sense here?
-
Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?
Like what? The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution. I strongly disagree with censorship of most things. But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things. Especially when it is actually harming other people.
One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn. Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing. It's a really slippery slope.
I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.
If anything, the PROTECT Act does nothing but HARM children. Say you are a thief. You live in a society where you will be punished the same no matter what you steal. In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar. Both would be just as easy to steal, but one is much more valuable to you. Which one are you going to steal? Since you will be punished the same for both, you might as well go with something that benefits you more, that being the golden bar. The same could be said about drawn "child pornography" and real child pornography. Given the choice, wouldn't someone want the real thing? They will be punished severely for both... The PROTECT Act in my eyes has done more harm than good.
Another problem with PROTECT:
Okay, so all visual depictions of kids are illegal. so the above scenario plays out. Now let's flip that around. Child porn is still illegal, but drawn porn is not. Say we promoted drawn child porn (in an extreme scenario), and say that we encouraged pedophiles and the like to view drawn porn as opposed to the real thing. They go to the drawn porn and there is less of a demand for real child porn, therefor saving children from being exploited. But with the first scenario (which is how the law is set up currently) , there would be a higher demand for real child porn because of the penalties of drawn porn.
Am I making sense here?
I say you don't make sense. Here is why. Promoting any kind of child porn at all in my eyes is wrong. It encourages people to find that to be acceptable behavior. Could some people look at drawn child porn and never harm a child? Sure. Same thing goes with rape porn. However, if you start encouraging it, and making it easy to get to. More people will be exposed to this type of porn, which would over time increase the amount of people who want the real thing. It has to be strongly discouraged. It should be wiped clean from the planet if at all possible.
The whole point is not to make the people represented in the porn look like objects and not humans. That is where the problems come in with porn. When people stop realizing they are looking at two humans who are consenting and doing their job. But that is a whole other issue with porn (one in which i'm not too concerned about because I think most people when looking at "normal" porn, can make that distinction.)
-
Do you not think those things could be banned based on something more logical?
Like what? The miller test right now is the best way to make those things illegal whilst still allowing A LOT of pornography to be protected by the US constitution. I strongly disagree with censorship of most things. But it gets to a point where there is just no need whatsoever for people to be looking for some things. Especially when it is actually harming other people.
One of the big questions going on in the porn world regarding the first amendment is virtual child porn, or cartoon child porn. Technically no children are getting hurt, but at the same time, its encouraging people to get into that sort of thing. It's a really slippery slope.
I highly doubt that in your life you will ever feel repressed by obscenity laws.
If anything, the PROTECT Act does nothing but HARM children. Say you are a thief. You live in a society where you will be punished the same no matter what you steal. In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar. Both would be just as easy to steal, but one is much more valuable to you. Which one are you going to steal? Since you will be punished the same for both, you might as well go with something that benefits you more, that being the golden bar. The same could be said about drawn "child pornography" and real child pornography. Given the choice, wouldn't someone want the real thing? They will be punished severely for both... The PROTECT Act in my eyes has done more harm than good.
Another problem with PROTECT:
Okay, so all visual depictions of kids are illegal. so the above scenario plays out. Now let's flip that around. Child porn is still illegal, but drawn porn is not. Say we promoted drawn child porn (in an extreme scenario), and say that we encouraged pedophiles and the like to view drawn porn as opposed to the real thing. They go to the drawn porn and there is less of a demand for real child porn, therefor saving children from being exploited. But with the first scenario (which is how the law is set up currently) , there would be a higher demand for real child porn because of the penalties of drawn porn.
Am I making sense here?
I say you don't make sense. Here is why. Promoting any kind of child porn at all in my eyes is wrong. It encourages people to find that to be acceptable behavior. Could some people look at drawn child porn and never harm a child? Sure. Same thing goes with rape porn. However, if you start encouraging it, and making it easy to get to. More people will be exposed to this type of porn, which would over time increase the amount of people who want the real thing. It has to be strongly discouraged. It should be wiped clean from the planet if at all possible.
The whole point is not to make the people represented in the porn look like objects and not humans. That is where the problems come in with porn. When people stop realizing they are looking at two humans who are consenting and doing their job. But that is a whole other issue with porn (one in which i'm not too concerned about because I think most people when looking at "normal" porn, can make that distinction.)
Do you have proof that viewing this type of drawn porn will make somebody take the next step to bang a kid? I believe it has the opposite effect.
-
if you make certain things legal and certain things not legal, you know some kind of logical explanation for why it is or isn't.
The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others.
There's no reason to have community standards, because anything that should be illegal can be made so based on a more solid reason than just 'it's against community standards', which as you admitted yourself is loaded. There's really no reason for obscenity laws to exist.
-
if you make certain things legal and certain things not legal, you know some kind of logical explanation for why it is or isn't.
The argument against necrophilia and child porn extends past just obscenity laws, and into just infringing on the rights of others.
There's no reason to have community standards, because anything that should be illegal can be made so based on a more solid reason than just 'it's against community standards', which as you admitted yourself is loaded. There's really no reason for obscenity laws to exist.
The problem is, you need to pick what should be illegal and what should not. How do you make that distinction? What about sex dolls that look like children. Where is the line? I think community standards plus the reasonable persons and all the other parts of the miller test give a solid background for what we can accept. Until the gov gets their act together on these laws. Because technically the laws are very fluid at the moment.
And to Icy, I do not have proof of trends, however, if you think about the glorification of child porn in any way, it can definitely help to encourage people into thinking having sex with children is no big thing. Because sooner or later, it's not the same. Just cause I watch porn, does not make me want to forget about having sex with a real girl. I bet every other person in this forum who looks at porn will say the same thing. They'd rather have the real thing than porn.
-
you need to pick what should be illegal and what should not.
The line is when it's directly harming someone else or infringing on their rights, simple as that.
How do you make that distinction? What about sex dolls that look like children. Where is the line? I think community standards plus the reasonable persons and all the other parts of the miller test give a solid background for what we can accept.
The question isn't about what's socially acceptable, it's about what is reasonable grounds to convict someone and put them in jail; by your logic a pillow with a fleshlight and picture of Miley Cyrus taped to it is grounds for conviction.
Just cause I watch porn, does not make me want to forget about having sex with a real girl. I bet every other person in this forum who looks at porn will say the same thing. They'd rather have the real thing than porn.
Not terribly related, but I wouldn't. Sex is rather uninteresting and baggage-filled, porn is not.
-
you need to pick what should be illegal and what should not.
The line is when it's directly harming someone else or infringing on their rights, simple as that.
How do you make that distinction? What about sex dolls that look like children. Where is the line? I think community standards plus the reasonable persons and all the other parts of the miller test give a solid background for what we can accept.
The question isn't about what's socially acceptable, it's about what is reasonable grounds to convict someone and put them in jail; by your logic a pillow with a fleshlight and picture of Miley Cyrus taped to it is grounds for conviction.
Just cause I watch porn, does not make me want to forget about having sex with a real girl. I bet every other person in this forum who looks at porn will say the same thing. They'd rather have the real thing than porn.
Not terribly related, but I wouldn't. Sex is rather uninteresting and baggage-filled, porn is not.
It's the fact of promotion of a certain way of thinking. My logic is solid. All kinds of child porn should be looked down upon. You can never stop someone from creating their own porn. anyone can draw child porn, or tape miley cyrus's face to a sex toy, but does that make it right? And it certainly should not be promoted or made available to people. The law has to be about common sense. Don't take a valid argument and then throw some misnomer in there like it is a valid rebuttal. The whole point, is that the laws are necessary to deter a way of thinking. To establish that it is unacceptable and undesirable.
Kids get a hold of this stuff, and we don't want kids growing up thinking underage porn is a good or welcome thing.
My views on obscenity personally don't coincide with the way things are done now, and I consider myself to be a reasonable person. I agree that the laws should, in a perfect world, only apply to where rights are getting infringed upon and hope society is responsible enough to hold that kind of responsibility. However, I don't necessarily disagree with the way things are being done right now because I can see no real alternative at the moment. These kind of things are always on a case by case basis. Because so much of the population enjoys porn, they can't make it a crime to seek it out and look at it because a huge percentage of the population will be breaking the law if a new law were to come into effect banning it.
There is a big difference between porn which is indecency and obscenity. The problem is, the government isn't sure that there is yet.
-
It doesn't matter what people think about. It matters what people do. I don't care if anyone thinks about raping a 3 year old, because most people think about murder and no one cares. I do, however, care if someone DOES rape a 3 year old, just as I care if a person commits murder.
And also, the law isn't there to make all bad things illegal, or else almost everything people do in general would be illegal.
If someone is very angry, and lets it out by putting pictures of celebrities faces on fake bodies and shooting them and so forth, should that be illegal too?
-
It doesn't matter what people think about. It matters what people do. I don't care if anyone thinks about raping a 3 year old, because most people think about murder and no one cares. I do, however, care if someone DOES rape a 3 year old, just as I care if a person commits murder.
And also, the law isn't there to make all bad things illegal, or else almost everything people do in general would be illegal.
If someone is very angry, and lets it out by putting pictures of celebrities faces on fake bodies and shooting them and so forth, should that be illegal too?
Like I said 4 times before, its about promotion of an idea that should not be acceptable to people. The material should not be able to be obtained by anyone in a perfect world. Will it? Yes. Should it? No. And I am for a law making it as hard as possible for people not to obtain this kind of material. It promotes the idea of having sex with a child. I don't want to live in a society that accepts this. It is morally wrong no matter how you look at it.
The way people think does matter, also. Actions start in the mind. The idea has to come from somewhere. So the less ideas people get about child porn being OK, the better.
-
So you ignore my counter points and just repeat.
"THIS IS BAD!!! WE HAVE TO STOP PEOPLE FROM DOING THIS!!!!!!!"
People said the exact same thing about porn in general and it ruined a lot of peoples lives. You know what happened? A paradigm shift. Porn is no longer seen as the horrible thing that turns our children into drug addicts who kill people and get aids.
What about other ideas you deem bad? Should we outlaw letting people think those too? What about Nazis? What about communists?
Should we outlaw Mein Kamph? Should we punish people for having racist thoughts? Should we punish them for thinking things you personally don't like?
Oh yea, I forgot. Murder isn't a big deal. Sex is evil.
-
The way people think does matter, also. Actions start in the mind. The idea has to come from somewhere
So why are violent video games and movies ok?
-
I'm totally against drawn porn of any small children, or any porn involving small children- written, drawn, real, whatever. It's all bad.
But I feel bad for the poor guys who go to jail for looking at drawn 16 year old japanese cartoon school-girls get banged by tentacles. How does one explain that to family?
:hat
-
I'm totally against drawn porn of any small children, or any porn involving small children- written, drawn, real, whatever. It's all bad.
But I feel bad for the poor guys who go to jail for looking at drawn 16 year old japanese cartoon school-girls get banged by tentacles. How does one explain that to family?
:hat
I think the line needs to be redrawn in this case. If someone is thinking about a post pubecent girl, it's quite different than wanting to have sex with a 6 year old. Yet according to the law, no difference really. That lacks any logic in the slightest bit. I don't think people should go to jail for wanting to sleep with a 7 year old, but those people should probably have some therapy. Only because that way of thinking is soooo shunned upon and is probably brought on by something else.
-
So you ignore my counter points and just repeat.
"THIS IS BAD!!! WE HAVE TO STOP PEOPLE FROM DOING THIS!!!!!!!"
People said the exact same thing about porn in general and it ruined a lot of peoples lives. You know what happened? A paradigm shift. Porn is no longer seen as the horrible thing that turns our children into drug addicts who kill people and get aids.
Your argument was that thinking something is harmless compared to doing. So therefore you defend the fact that people should have access to child porn as long as no child is actually in it. If you read my argument you will see that is exactly what I am talking about. And it directly correlates with what you are trying to defend. My thoughts are well constructed as well, so typing in all caps like I'm sitting here just spouting BS is utter crap.
You can't stop people from thinking, but you can stop those ideas from getting to other people. How the hell could you possibly defend child pornography and the spreading of those ideas? I'm all for freedom of speech, but child pornography is not speech that should ever be protected under the US constitution. The difference in porn destroying people's lives is that it's adults in the films making the decision to be in them. Not children getting raped. Porn = Indecency = protected speech. Child porn = obscenity = not protected speech. Welcome to America, where in this case we are doing something right.
BTW hate speech isn't protected either.
-
Then what about murder? Why can people think about that and transfer those thoughts?
What about rape? Theft? Genocide? Mass desctrution? Anybody can make a cartoon, movie or a book promoting those beliefs and it seems you're fine with that.
Are you?
-
You cannot write books promoting genocide in the United States and get away with it. Maybe you should know the laws regarding freedom of speech in the US before arguing. Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about games like Grand theft auto where it's just going around slaughtering innocent people.
The difference is, there are whole underground rings of people distributing and making child porn. I don't think there are many people running around and gunning down random people on the street. Yes there are murders all over the place, but not like it is depicted in said video game. No one besides serial killers go around killing for fun.
There are much more people into child porn than people who want to go murder people for fun. And the fact is, people into child porn are getting off on the raping and taking of innocence from children who don't even have a choice in the matter. They are manipulated into doing acts with older people. It's despicable. As is murder. But they are not one in the same act. However I am for making the two equal weights as far as punishment goes. And, they should both be stricter.
EDIT: Child porn comes from the taking of innocence from a child. Murder does not come from Video games. Video games don't satiate people's want to murder other people. Child porn satiates someone's want to have sex with a small child.
-
You cannot write books promoting genocide in the United States and get away with it. Maybe you should know the laws regarding freedom of speech in the US before arguing. Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about games like Grand theft auto where it's just going around slaughtering innocent people.
The difference is, there are whole underground rings of people distributing and making child porn. I don't think there are many people running around and gunning down random people on the street. Yes there are murders all over the place, but not like it is depicted in said video game. No one besides serial killers go around killing for fun.
There are much more people into child porn than people who want to go murder people for fun. And the fact is, people into child porn are getting off on the raping and taking of innocence from children who don't even have a choice in the matter. They are manipulated into doing acts with older people. It's despicable. As is murder. But they are not one in the same act. However I am for making the two equal weights as far as punishment goes. And, they should both be stricter.
There are lots of movies about murder. Maybe not genocide, but tons of movies are about killing people as if they meant nothing. And yes there have been plenty of murders in similar fashions. Should all movies be G rated disney movies?
In the end, you can't control peoples thoughts. People have to have the freedom to think whatever they want. This isn't 1984.
-
I'm totally against drawn porn of any small children, or any porn involving small children- written, drawn, real, whatever. It's all bad.
But I feel bad for the poor guys who go to jail for looking at drawn 16 year old japanese cartoon school-girls get banged by tentacles. How does one explain that to family?
:hat
I think the line needs to be redrawn in this case. If someone is thinking about a post pubecent girl, it's quite different than wanting to have sex with a 6 year old. Yet according to the law, no difference really. That lacks any logic in the slightest bit. I don't think people should go to jail for wanting to sleep with a 7 year old, but those people should probably have some therapy. Only because that way of thinking is soooo shunned upon and is probably brought on by something else.
The line is all fucked up. There are plenty of underaged girls who are fully developed. Likewise, there's plenty of girls who are well above age who look underaged. My girlfriend of 5 years still looks exactly like how she did when I met her when she was 15. She hasn't gained a pound or grown an inch since I've known her.
-
You cannot write books promoting genocide in the United States and get away with it. Maybe you should know the laws regarding freedom of speech in the US before arguing. Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about games like Grand theft auto where it's just going around slaughtering innocent people.
The difference is, there are whole underground rings of people distributing and making child porn. I don't think there are many people running around and gunning down random people on the street. Yes there are murders all over the place, but not like it is depicted in said video game. No one besides serial killers go around killing for fun.
There are much more people into child porn than people who want to go murder people for fun. And the fact is, people into child porn are getting off on the raping and taking of innocence from children who don't even have a choice in the matter. They are manipulated into doing acts with older people. It's despicable. As is murder. But they are not one in the same act. However I am for making the two equal weights as far as punishment goes. And, they should both be stricter.
There are lots of movies about murder. Maybe not genocide, but tons of movies are about killing people as if they meant nothing. And yes there have been plenty of murders in similar fashions. Should all movies be G rated disney movies?
In the end, you can't control peoples thoughts. People have to have the freedom to think whatever they want. This isn't 1984.
Adami, please pay attention to my argument, and stop dumbing it down. I'm not talking about mind control. I'm talking about closing the channels so child porn cannot be distributed to the masses.
The difference in movies is that its FAKE. Child porn is REAL. There are real children getting abused. There is a difference. How can you not see the difference there?
-
I'm totally against drawn porn of any small children, or any porn involving small children- written, drawn, real, whatever. It's all bad.
But I feel bad for the poor guys who go to jail for looking at drawn 16 year old japanese cartoon school-girls get banged by tentacles. How does one explain that to family?
:hat
I think the line needs to be redrawn in this case. If someone is thinking about a post pubecent girl, it's quite different than wanting to have sex with a 6 year old. Yet according to the law, no difference really. That lacks any logic in the slightest bit. I don't think people should go to jail for wanting to sleep with a 7 year old, but those people should probably have some therapy. Only because that way of thinking is soooo shunned upon and is probably brought on by something else.
The line is all fucked up. There are plenty of underaged girls who are fully developed. Likewise, there's plenty of girls who are well above age who look underaged. My girlfriend of 5 years still looks exactly like how she did when I met her when she was 15. She hasn't gained a pound or grown an inch since I've known her.
Which is why I stick to my theory that we should let nature set the line. Puberty. Before is bad, after is not as bad. With obvious special circumstances.
-
You cannot write books promoting genocide in the United States and get away with it. Maybe you should know the laws regarding freedom of speech in the US before arguing. Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about games like Grand theft auto where it's just going around slaughtering innocent people.
The difference is, there are whole underground rings of people distributing and making child porn. I don't think there are many people running around and gunning down random people on the street. Yes there are murders all over the place, but not like it is depicted in said video game. No one besides serial killers go around killing for fun.
There are much more people into child porn than people who want to go murder people for fun. And the fact is, people into child porn are getting off on the raping and taking of innocence from children who don't even have a choice in the matter. They are manipulated into doing acts with older people. It's despicable. As is murder. But they are not one in the same act. However I am for making the two equal weights as far as punishment goes. And, they should both be stricter.
There are lots of movies about murder. Maybe not genocide, but tons of movies are about killing people as if they meant nothing. And yes there have been plenty of murders in similar fashions. Should all movies be G rated disney movies?
In the end, you can't control peoples thoughts. People have to have the freedom to think whatever they want. This isn't 1984.
Adami, please pay attention to my argument, and stop dumbing it down. I'm not talking about mind control. I'm talking about closing the channels so child porn cannot be distributed to the masses.
The difference in movies is that its FAKE. Child porn is REAL. There are real children getting abused. There is a difference. How can you not see the difference there?
Because we're not talking about child porn. We're talking about simulated child porn, just like simulated murder. Do I think pictures of 7 year olds naked should be legal? No. But a drawing? Why the hell not?
-
I'm totally against drawn porn of any small children, or any porn involving small children- written, drawn, real, whatever. It's all bad.
But I feel bad for the poor guys who go to jail for looking at drawn 16 year old japanese cartoon school-girls get banged by tentacles. How does one explain that to family?
:hat
I think the line needs to be redrawn in this case. If someone is thinking about a post pubecent girl, it's quite different than wanting to have sex with a 6 year old. Yet according to the law, no difference really. That lacks any logic in the slightest bit. I don't think people should go to jail for wanting to sleep with a 7 year old, but those people should probably have some therapy. Only because that way of thinking is soooo shunned upon and is probably brought on by something else.
The line is all fucked up. There are plenty of underaged girls who are fully developed. Likewise, there's plenty of girls who are well above age who look underaged. My girlfriend of 5 years still looks exactly like how she did when I met her when she was 15. She hasn't gained a pound or grown an inch since I've known her.
It has nothing to do with looks. It's about a child being able to choose. Being mature enough. The law says 18 is the line. That is the fucking line as far as America is concerned. We raise our kids to expect to be independent by that age, so that is why it is there. If the age for adulthood changed, the way people would be raised would change and maybe kids would be more mature by 16. But in America, kids have until 18 to be just kids. And you know what, I'm perfectly ok with that.
-
I'm totally against drawn porn of any small children, or any porn involving small children- written, drawn, real, whatever. It's all bad.
But I feel bad for the poor guys who go to jail for looking at drawn 16 year old japanese cartoon school-girls get banged by tentacles. How does one explain that to family?
:hat
I think the line needs to be redrawn in this case. If someone is thinking about a post pubecent girl, it's quite different than wanting to have sex with a 6 year old. Yet according to the law, no difference really. That lacks any logic in the slightest bit. I don't think people should go to jail for wanting to sleep with a 7 year old, but those people should probably have some therapy. Only because that way of thinking is soooo shunned upon and is probably brought on by something else.
The line is all fucked up. There are plenty of underaged girls who are fully developed. Likewise, there's plenty of girls who are well above age who look underaged. My girlfriend of 5 years still looks exactly like how she did when I met her when she was 15. She hasn't gained a pound or grown an inch since I've known her.
Which is why I stick to my theory that we should let nature set the line. Puberty. Before is bad, after is not as bad. With obvious special circumstances.
This makes the line even blurier? How do you define puberty? How do you know when its started or when its over? Puberty isn't a line. It's a huge grey area. Kids can be going through puberty for years. What the heck logic is that you just suggested? Are you even thinking this stuff over in your head?
-
Puberty is pretty simple to define dude. If you aren't familiar with it, I suggest you read up on it.
-
Puberty is pretty simple to define dude. If you aren't familiar with it, I suggest you read up on it.
The most ignorant comment I think I have ever read.
-
Fair enough.
So far you have ignored my points, changed your argument when I asked you to re-read my points, ignored the fact that I pointed out that you changed your argument, and claimed that puberty is undefinable and that thoughts should be outlawd.
With that in mind, I am fine with you thinking I'm ignorant or whatever else you have called me in this thread.
It's clear you're going to stick to your ultra conservative values and have no desire to be challenged, so I'm out. You win, all girls under 18 are horrible think about. I should go to jail for thinking Miley Cyrus is hot. Have a lovely day.
-
Puberty is pretty simple to define dude. If you aren't familiar with it, I suggest you read up on it.
The most ignorant comment I think I have ever read.
Coming from the guy comparing a child being coerced and raped while the act is filmed and sold for profit to a drawn picture.
-
And another thing is that people who go to see a movie with murder, are not going to see it just for the murder. You can't argue that people who go films with murder in them want to out and murder people just to fill a desire. Well in child porn, or simulated, its a person who is sexually attracted to children getting off on children. And the people who seek that shit out, want to have sex with a child. Read up on it. These people have to live in restraint there whole lives. Some can restrain, and obviously others can't. This is not how murder works in our society. Murder's are 99/100 times out of circumstances that lead up to a murder.
The two are different.
-
And another thing is that people who go to see a movie with murder, are not going to see it just for the murder.
So should someone who looks up a snuff film be locked up?
Heading out for the night.
-
Puberty is pretty simple to define dude. If you aren't familiar with it, I suggest you read up on it.
The most ignorant comment I think I have ever read.
Coming from the guy comparing a child being coerced and raped while the act is filmed and sold for profit to a drawn picture.
I never said it was the same thing. I said it is the PROMOTION of this act. And the access that it gives to people seeking this out. People who actually want to have sex with a child for real. But yeah, its easier to just summarize vague understandings of what I am trying to say about this subject.
I'm not even a conservative. I just have a moral line I set and I think 98% of this country agrees with.
I am not making ignorant comments such as suggesting puberty has a cut and dry start stop. Like you can just look at a child and know if they have or have not completed puberty. It's a grey area because puberty is a time period, not a moment.
Next you'll argue that the greeks and romans used to have sex with children and it wasn't always looked down upon. Yeah well, women were once considered property. Maybe we should go back to that way of thinking too?
I'm not saying that as an attack thinking you believe that way, I'm just making a point. The laws protect children. Even laws against simulated child porn. Just like ratings systems for movies are intended to keep children away from seeing violent movies.
The whole issue is the portrayal of children.
-
And another thing is that people who go to see a movie with murder, are not going to see it just for the murder.
So should someone who looks up a snuff film be locked up?
Heading out for the night.
Legal porn is protected speech. So no.
-
You cannot write books promoting genocide in the United States and get away with it. Maybe you should know the laws regarding freedom of speech in the US before arguing. Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about games like Grand theft auto where it's just going around slaughtering innocent people.
The difference is, there are whole underground rings of people distributing and making child porn. I don't think there are many people running around and gunning down random people on the street. Yes there are murders all over the place, but not like it is depicted in said video game. No one besides serial killers go around killing for fun.
There are much more people into child porn than people who want to go murder people for fun. And the fact is, people into child porn are getting off on the raping and taking of innocence from children who don't even have a choice in the matter. They are manipulated into doing acts with older people. It's despicable. As is murder. But they are not one in the same act. However I am for making the two equal weights as far as punishment goes. And, they should both be stricter.
There are lots of movies about murder. Maybe not genocide, but tons of movies are about killing people as if they meant nothing. And yes there have been plenty of murders in similar fashions. Should all movies be G rated disney movies?
In the end, you can't control peoples thoughts. People have to have the freedom to think whatever they want. This isn't 1984.
Adami, please pay attention to my argument, and stop dumbing it down. I'm not talking about mind control. I'm talking about closing the channels so child porn cannot be distributed to the masses.
The difference in movies is that its FAKE. Child porn is REAL. There are real children getting abused. There is a difference. How can you not see the difference there?
Because we're not talking about child porn. We're talking about simulated child porn, just like simulated murder. Do I think pictures of 7 year olds naked should be legal? No. But a drawing? Why the hell not?
Re-read my posts and you will see my argument to why simulated child porn should not be distributed. It also linked with my rebuttal against you thinking simulated murder is the same thing. You have to look at it within context of a culture. I have outlined my points clearly and addressed the things you have said. Whether you choose to accept that fact or not, is up to you. I have read carefully what you have said, thought about it, and then replied.
-
And another thing is that people who go to see a movie with murder, are not going to see it just for the murder. You can't argue that people who go films with murder in them want to out and murder people just to fill a desire. Well in child porn, or simulated, its a person who is sexually attracted to children getting off on children. And the people who seek that shit out, want to have sex with a child. Read up on it. These people have to live in restraint there whole lives. Some can restrain, and obviously others can't. This is not how murder works in our society. Murder's are 99/100 times out of circumstances that lead up to a murder.
The two are different.
Can you please cite a source where it says all people who look up simulated child porn want to fuck children? The way I see it, these people DON'T want to fuck children, or else they would go out and do it. Why sit there jacking off to the toons when you can have the real thing? Your argument makes no sense, I'm afraid to say. I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think you are thinking out your argument here. Try harder.
Also, here's a tip: Stick to one argument. You change your argument so many times it's hard for me to believe you hate drawn kiddy porn for any other reason than you think its bad, then trying to justify your unreasonable hate by making up random arguments that don't make sense.
-
And another thing is that people who go to see a movie with murder, are not going to see it just for the murder. You can't argue that people who go films with murder in them want to out and murder people just to fill a desire. Well in child porn, or simulated, its a person who is sexually attracted to children getting off on children. And the people who seek that shit out, want to have sex with a child. Read up on it. These people have to live in restraint there whole lives. Some can restrain, and obviously others can't. This is not how murder works in our society. Murder's are 99/100 times out of circumstances that lead up to a murder.
The two are different.
Can you please cite a source where it says all people who look up simulated child porn want to fuck children? The way I see it, these people DON'T want to fuck children, or else they would go out and do it. Why sit there jacking off to the toons when you can have the real thing? Your argument makes no sense, I'm afraid to say. I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think you are thinking out your argument here. Try harder.
Also, here's a tip: Stick to one argument. You change your argument so many times it's hard for me to believe you hate drawn kiddy porn for any other reason than you think its bad, then trying to justify your unreasonable hate by making up random arguments that don't make sense.
It's not all people who actually get to the point where they commit. But I have read interviews of people who have been convicted of having child porn, they live with it everyday that they are attracted to children and they have to hold back despite how much they want to.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
* Child pornography is one of the fastest growing businesses online, and the content is becoming much worse. In 2008, Internet Watch Foundation found 1,536 individual child abuse domains. (Internet Watch Foundation. Annual Report, 2008).
* Of all known child abuse domains, 58 percent are housed in the United States (Internet Watch Foundation. Annual Report, 2008).
* The fastest growing demand in commercial websites for child abuse is for images depicting the worst type of abuse, including penetrative sexual activity involving children and adults and sadism or penetration by an animal (Internet Watch Foundation. Annual Report, 2008).
* In a study of arrested child pornography possessors, 40 percent had both sexually victimized children and were in possession of child pornography. Of those arrested between 2000 and 2001, 83 percent had images involving children between the ages 6 and 12; 39 percent had images of children between ages 3 and 5; and 19% had images of infants and toddlers under age 3 (National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings fro the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study.
https://enough.org/inside.php?tag=statistics
Happy? Let's see you find evidence that depictions of child porn is good. How can you even defend it? It promotes the idea of having sex with children as a good and healthy thing. That is my bottom line. It has been since I started arguing this point. If you can't follow, you have not tried to actually read and understand my point. I know you are still in high school so I just gotta say, I have taken courses on a lot of this stuff in college. I know how to formulate a point. Maybe it isn't as clear on a forum cause its disjointed because I am replying to 3 different people all at once. But don't tell me this argument doesn't make sense, because it does. If you just take the time to read it through and think about it, you'll see what I am saying. Whether or not you agree is totally up to you to decide. But at least understand what you are going against.
-
I love all the arguments against drawn child porn, and I always have to ask those people, do you support prosecution of thoughtcrime?
-
I love all the arguments against drawn child porn, and I always have to ask those people, do you support prosecution of thoughtcrime?
It's not a thought. You can see that right? It's an expression that can be distributed to people. Very specific people who want a specific thing. Don't set the argument backwards with something that has already been addressed.
-
So let's say some people want to see Tom Cruise getting shot in the stomach. I draw that drawing. Should I be prosecuted in the same way as someone who shot Tom Cruise in the stomach and distributed that image on the internet?
-
I love all the arguments against drawn child porn, and I always have to ask those people, do you support prosecution of thoughtcrime?
It's not a thought. You can see that right? It's an expression that can be distributed to people. Very specific people who want a specific thing. Don't set the argument backwards with something that has already been addressed.
Irrelevant. They haven't done anything, and there's no direct evidence that they're going to do anything.
-
:corn
-
So let's say some people want to see Tom Cruise getting shot in the stomach. I draw that drawing. Should I be prosecuted in the same way as someone who shot Tom Cruise in the stomach and distributed that image on the internet?
There is a good chance you could get prosecuted being that it is an outward threat. That kind of speech is not protected under the 1st amendment. Motivating people to commit a crime is also a crime. Which I believe child porn does. I have already addressed the differences between murder and child porn in this thread.
The fact is, depictions of murdering adults is seen as ok in our society. But you don't see movies glorifying the butchering of children. It's taboo in our society. Children are innocent. Promoting child pornography is wrong. Virtual child porn advocates that it is ok to have sex with a child. The spread of it creates problems.
If you think people who actively search out simulated child porn, aren't actually looking at the real thing you must be incredibly naive to the world. How long till simulated child porn won't be enough?
-
I love all the arguments against drawn child porn, and I always have to ask those people, do you support prosecution of thoughtcrime?
It's not a thought. You can see that right? It's an expression that can be distributed to people. Very specific people who want a specific thing. Don't set the argument backwards with something that has already been addressed.
Irrelevant. They haven't done anything, and there's no direct evidence that they're going to do anything.
Yes they have. They have created obscenity. And if they distribute said obscenity and are caught, they are going to prison.
-
So let's say some people want to see Tom Cruise getting shot in the stomach. I draw that drawing. Should I be prosecuted in the same way as someone who shot Tom Cruise in the stomach and distributed that image on the internet?
But you don't see movies glorifying the butchering of children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSKr27dyt9E
-
It's not important. Punish them when they actually hurt someone. Until then they haven't done anything wrong.
-
Jesus fuck this is the most circular debate this forum's had in a while.
Obscenity laws are wrong -> no they're not, they prosecute crimes -> drawn child porn shouldn't be a crime -> yes it should, it's obscenity -> return to beginning
I'm done.
-
It's not important. Punish them when they actually hurt someone. Until then they haven't done anything wrong.
Are you not capable of seeing the connection? IF they distribute those images they create. It gets around. Duplicated. It goes into these rings of people who trade this shit around. And a lot of those people are people who are willing to hurt children for kicks.
Why do you think it is Ok to distribute images of child porn? Why can you justify that people should be able to distribute those images to each other? Everyone keeps knocking my argument, but no one can say why you think its actually good for people. Cause it's not. The people who want to look at that stuff are turned on by CHILDREN.
God forbid something like this happens to someone you know. It is a real problem that affects real people. It ain't some stupid internet game. Real people's lives are destroyed. And distribution/promotion/glorification of child porn is all part of the problem.
-
I never said it's ok to distribute or create images of actual child porn.
Anyways, let's play a little game. This game is called "Should Genowyn go to prison for possession of child porn"
My favorite thing ever is a game called Fate/Stay Night. It has impacted me as a human being more than any other piece of media ever has. It changed my outlook on life and has made me a happier person today. It has a great balance of badass, funny, and emotional. It also has porn in it. Right at the beginning of the game it claims "All characters in this game are at least 18 years of age"...for obvious reasons. It's obviously untrue though, considering moooost of the case is in high school. The game is split into three routes, each focusing around a certain girl, each one having its own plot and villain. For example, my sig is from the climax of the "Unlimited Blade Works" route, where the girl it focuses on is Rin, who is the same age as the main character (17ish). Over the course of the game, they have sex. Similarly, in the games final route, "Heaven's Feel", the girl is Sakura, who is about a year younger than the main character (so about 16). The only one of the girls who isn't underage is Saber, and she's probably about 20~25, though she still looks like a teenage girl, and she certainly looks less developed than Sakura.
By the law, this should be considered child pornography and my possession of it should be prosecuted as such. Is that fair or reasonable in any way?
-
I never said it's ok to distribute or create images of actual child porn.
Anyways, let's play a little game. This game is called "Should Genowyn go to prison for possession of child porn"
My favorite thing ever is a game called Fate/Stay Night. It has impacted me as a human being more than any other piece of media ever has. It changed my outlook on life and has made me a happier person today. It has a great balance of badass, funny, and emotional. It also has porn in it. Right at the beginning of the game it claims "All characters in this game are at least 18 years of age"...for obvious reasons. It's obviously untrue though, considering moooost of the case is in high school. The game is split into three routes, each focusing around a certain girl, each one having its own plot and villain. For example, my sig is from the climax of the "Unlimited Blade Works" route, where the girl it focuses on is Rin, who is the same age as the main character (17ish). Over the course of the game, they have sex. Similarly, in the games final route, "Heaven's Feel", the girl is Sakura, who is about a year younger than the main character (so about 16). The only one of the girls who isn't underage is Saber, and she's probably about 20~25, though she still looks like a teenage girl, and she certainly looks less developed than Sakura.
By the law, this should be considered child pornography and my possession of it should be prosecuted as such. Is that fair or reasonable in any way?
This is an interesting example. Was this game created and distributed in the United States? I'm going to guess no. But I want you to clarify. The fact that there is a disclaimer that says all ages are over 18 changes things as well. How do you know that the girls are not the same age? You say it looks like they are this and that, but does the game actually say they are 16 or 17? My guess is no given the disclaimer. So right there we might be able to rule out that it is child porn legally.
Now, it might not be considered obscenity at all. Given that the sex depicted happens within a story and confines of a game, it can be seen as a piece of artwork. Therefore it can have societal good.
So it seems like your game is safe under the law. Unless it was made in Japan and actually depicts child porn. It also depends on how graphic the sex is. Because underage kids are depicted having sex in movies all the time. It's just fake and the actors are over 18.
So there are some variable that would need to be cleared up to figure out if this is indeed child porn or not. It's kinda on the fringe. I've never seen the game so I don't know.
-
It's made in Japan. The characters are all in high school and thus unless they all happened to fail for 2~3 years in a row the chances of them being over 18 is quite low (though in the main character's case I could see it happen, he's not bright). And the sex is quite graphic. Like I said, the sex scenes are porn. Hilariously badly written porn (seriously, nearly every scene he says something really disturbing like "It's so tight I feel like my dick might be ripped off if I pull out!"), but nonetheless, definitely porn. I suppose it could be saved by the whole artistic merit thing, especially considering the porn takes up about an hour of the 100+ hour game, but still. All it would take would be a judge who doesn't like anime for it to not have artistic merit.
-
It's made in Japan. The characters are all in high school and thus unless they all happened to fail for 2~3 years in a row the chances of them being over 18 is quite low (though in the main character's case I could see it happen, he's not bright). And the sex is quite graphic. Like I said, the sex scenes are porn. Hilariously badly written porn (seriously, nearly every scene he says something really disturbing like "It's so tight I feel like my dick might be ripped off if I pull out!"), but nonetheless, definitely porn. I suppose it could be saved by the whole artistic merit thing, especially considering the porn takes up about an hour of the 100+ hour game, but still. All it would take would be a judge who doesn't like anime for it to not have artistic merit.
Well since it was made in Japan, yeah you are already probably breaking a law by bringing it across the border. But only if the kids are actually depicted as being younger than 18. If the game doesn't say it. You are fine.
The thing is with Japanese culture is that they are obsessed with rape porn, and underage porn. So it's pretty touchy stuff over here in the USA.
I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends. The law might not see the two as different. But I personally can see the difference. But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states. So who knows what the Japanese were doing.
-
I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends. The law might not see the two as different. But I personally can see the difference. But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states. So who knows what the Japanese were doing.
You cant stop that in a way that doesn't infringe on other non offender's privacy. If you want to make distribution of physical and digital media made up of pictures and video of actual children being raped and violated, fine by me (which it currently is). But a drawing is completely unreal. Its imagining, creation, and transfer from person to person harms no one and is probably a creative and nonviolent way for people who may actually have urges to control them.
The only practical solution is to allow people to think and draw whatever the hell they desire and punish people who take those fantasies into the real world and cause harm to others. If you go any farther than that you end up inefficiently trying to coerce peoples thoughts into your own belief of how the world should be and that isn't fair to anyone but you.
-
So judging by your logic 7string, all people who smoke marijuana will eventually do cocaine. I mean, they want to get high, don't they? Surely cocaine gets you a better high than marijuana, so they must WANT to do cocaine and they WILL do it at some point. Is this correct? Because based on your logic, it should be...
-
I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends. The law might not see the two as different. But I personally can see the difference. But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states. So who knows what the Japanese were doing.
The only practical solution is to allow people to think and draw whatever the hell they desire and punish people who take those fantasies into the real world and cause harm to others. If you go any farther than that you end up inefficiently trying to coerce peoples thoughts into your own belief of how the world should be and that isn't fair to anyone but you.
Just about everyone but 7string's posts can be summed up into this beautiful paragraph. Bravo.
-
And another thing is that people who go to see a movie with murder, are not going to see it just for the murder.
So should someone who looks up a snuff film be locked up?
Heading out for the night.
Legal porn is protected speech. So no.
So one of your primary arguments for why violent movies are ok is because people don't watch them just for the murder, then when I ask about a recording of an actual murder you turn around and go "well legal porn is legal, so I guess this should be ok." What? You're arguing that, because something's legal it's ok and if it's illegal then it's not? In a discussion about whether certain things SHOULD be legal or illegal in the first place? Excellent arguments. :facepalm:
-
I think there is a big difference between what you described here to me, and some guy drawing pictures of himself railing a 10 year old and distributing to his pedophile friends. The law might not see the two as different. But I personally can see the difference. But again, the characters are over 18 as the game states. So who knows what the Japanese were doing.
You cant stop that in a way that doesn't infringe on other non offender's privacy. If you want to make distribution of physical and digital media made up of pictures and video of actual children being raped and violated, fine by me (which it currently is). But a drawing is completely unreal. Its imagining, creation, and transfer from person to person harms no one and is probably a creative and nonviolent way for people who may actually have urges to control them.
The only practical solution is to allow people to think and draw whatever the hell they desire and punish people who take those fantasies into the real world and cause harm to others. If you go any farther than that you end up inefficiently trying to coerce peoples thoughts into your own belief of how the world should be and that isn't fair to anyone but you.
And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing.
-
So judging by your logic 7string, all people who smoke marijuana will eventually do cocaine. I mean, they want to get high, don't they? Surely cocaine gets you a better high than marijuana, so they must WANT to do cocaine and they WILL do it at some point. Is this correct? Because based on your logic, it should be...
You are making the most inane completely unequivocal comparisons. Why don't you stay on the topic at hand. Stop with terrible unrelated "comparisons".
-
And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing.
Maybe because there isn't one.
To me, it's really very simple. If someone is being harmed, there should probably be a law against it. Murder, rape, robbery. Those are the easy ones. When you get to taking pictures of underage children, you start talking about "psychological damage". Okay, fine, let's say we allow that into the conversation. So possessing kiddie porn is illegal because somewhere in the process, a child was potentially damaged by having her picture taken while naked.
How does "virtual child porn" hurt anyone? No children involved, everyone's a consenting adult. You cannot legislate what goes on in someone's imagination. No crime.
-
And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing.
Kind of like how you ignore that "simulated violence" glorifies violence using your same argument. The media has certainly jumped through hoops to draw parallels between kids that shoot up their school and them owning a violent video game, and there have been studies done that supposedly show that people who play violent video games are, on average, more "aggressive" than those that don't.
But, wait. Violent games and movies are ok because the streets aren't full of people going around just killing random people like what happens in violent video games like GTA. So does that mean tentacle porn featuring a kid is ok because we don't see many Octopuses walking around having sex with children? I doubt it.
And then we've got snuff films, which are only watched for the purpose of seeing a person getting murdered (for real). You said that these should be allowed because "porn is protected" (what? Watching a recording of someone ending the life of another person is ok because it's ok to watch two consenting adults have fake sex?), but yet that contradicts your "it glorifies X and we need to keep people from having X thoughts and thinking it's ok."
There's no consistency.
-
I honestly think he just misunderstood the definition of a snuff film, give him a break :lol
-
I honestly think he just misunderstood the definition of a snuff film, give him a break :lol
Yeah what is your definition of snuff film?
-
And still EVERYONE here ignored the fact that it promotes and glorifies child pornography. Everyone here ignores the link between virtual child porn and the real thing.
Kind of like how you ignore that "simulated violence" glorifies violence using your same argument. The media has certainly jumped through hoops to draw parallels between kids that shoot up their school and them owning a violent video game, and there have been studies done that supposedly show that people who play violent video games are, on average, more "aggressive" than those that don't.
But, wait. Violent games and movies are ok because the streets aren't full of people going around just killing random people like what happens in violent video games like GTA. So does that mean tentacle porn featuring a kid is ok because we don't see many Octopuses walking around having sex with children? I doubt it.
And then we've got snuff films, which are only watched for the purpose of seeing a person getting murdered (for real). You said that these should be allowed because "porn is protected" (what? Watching a recording of someone ending the life of another person is ok because it's ok to watch two consenting adults have fake sex?), but yet that contradicts your "it glorifies X and we need to keep people from having X thoughts and thinking it's ok."
There's no consistency.
Yeah I definitely didn't know what was meant by snuff film. No that is definitely not protected! Not at all. And violent video games aren't making kids more violent.
Murder and child porn are 2 completely different issues dealing with completely different psychological things. Stop comparing them. It does not support your argument.
-
Actually, the argument this whole time has been about obscenity laws hasn't it? There needs to be consistency in how these laws are applied. Either we're trying to do what we can to "prevent people from having certain thoughts" or from "encouraging" certain urges or we're not.
Does watching something happen or engaging in a simulated version of the act make people want to do that act more or does it not? Whether people actually do it is irrelevant to if it's encouraging the thought and act of it, according to your own arguments on drawn child porn.
-
So judging by your logic 7string, all people who smoke marijuana will eventually do cocaine. I mean, they want to get high, don't they? Surely cocaine gets you a better high than marijuana, so they must WANT to do cocaine and they WILL do it at some point. Is this correct? Because based on your logic, it should be...
You are making the most inane completely unequivocal comparisons. Why don't you stay on the topic at hand. Stop with terrible unrelated "comparisons".
How is that unequivocal? I see it as a perfect comparison. Show me how it is not.
-
Actually, the argument this whole time has been about obscenity laws hasn't it? There needs to be consistency in how these laws are applied. Either we're trying to do what we can to "prevent people from having certain thoughts" or from "encouraging" certain urges or we're not.
Does watching something happen or engaging in a simulated version of the act make people want to do that act more or does it not? Whether people actually do it is irrelevant to if it's encouraging the thought and act of it, according to your own arguments on drawn child porn.
Bingo.
As I've said so often, there should be no such thing as a thought crime. IMO, any prohibition of any pornography is just that. Who or what somebody wants to look at or think of while they rub one out is nobody's business but their own.
-
And DTF hits another one out of the park!
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
Why are drawn images of child porn not allowed but simulated violence is? Without contradicting your own argument on why drawn child porn should be banned.
And how can you say this isn't about thoughts when you said:
It promotes the idea of having sex with a child. I don't want to live in a society that accepts this. It is morally wrong no matter how you look at it.
The way people think does matter, also. Actions start in the mind. The idea has to come from somewhere. So the less ideas people get about child porn being OK, the better.
"This isn't about persecuting thoughts! This is about preventing people from coming into contact with things that might put certain dangerous thoughts into their head!"
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
Why are drawn images of child porn not allowed but simulated violence is? Without contradicting your own argument on why drawn child porn should be banned.
And how can you say this isn't about thoughts when you said:
It promotes the idea of having sex with a child. I don't want to live in a society that accepts this. It is morally wrong no matter how you look at it.
The way people think does matter, also. Actions start in the mind. The idea has to come from somewhere. So the less ideas people get about child porn being OK, the better.
"This isn't about persecuting thoughts! This is about preventing people from coming into contact with things that might put certain dangerous thoughts into their head!"
Let me rephrase, its not about arresting people over a thought.
So you see no connection between virtual child porn, and the real thing at all. In your little own world, the people who look at virtual child porn are not also going to be collecting the real thing? You act like its completely innocent. It does cause harm. I showed evidence from research. Where is your evidence and research showing it doesn't end up harming anyone?
-
Research has shown that kids that play more violent games are more aggressive. Why aren't you answering my question about violence?
Where is your evidence and research showing it doesn't end up harming anyone?
The thing about your "evidence" is that it doesn't say, as far as I can tell, if the offenders were in possession of images of actual children or if it was drawn. Images of real children being sexual abused should be banned for obvious reasons.
As for your "people who look at drawn stuff will then try to find the real thing" argument, you've really got absolutely no basis for that claim.
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
Bullshit. You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime. I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.
-
There is a connection. Just as there is a connection between axe murderers and axes and hit and run drivers and the 1993 Ford Taurus. A connection on the other hand is not adequate justification for banning something. There needs to be substantial evidence that it actively causes dangerous behaviour.
The evidence your link provided was that people who abused children also generally possessed child pornography. That is not surprising, and I don't think anyone is disputing. What statistics are needed however are ones which show how many people who at some point look at drawn images, or written depictions of such actions actually go on to performing the actual actions that have been at this point confined to thought or fiction. Like people who are exposed to virtual/fictional violence, I suspect that the conversion efficiency is low, and actually caused by deeper rooted psychological issues.
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
Bullshit. You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime. I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.
possession is not completely irrelevant.
EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree. But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
Bullshit. You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime. I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.
possession is not completely irrelevant.
EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree. But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.
I don't buy it. The person who made the picture has [conceivably] harmed someone. The person he gives/sells/shows it to has not harmed anyone. If he proceeds to sell it to 20 million people, there has still been no further harm.
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
Bullshit. You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime. I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.
possession is not completely irrelevant.
EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree. But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.
I don't buy it. The person who made the picture has [conceivably] harmed someone. The person he gives/sells/shows it to has not harmed anyone. If he proceeds to sell it to 20 million people, there has still been no further harm.
Do you think it is OK to knowingly recieve, purchase, or be in possession of stolen property?
-
Please stop ignoring my argument. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THOUGHTS. This is about the ALLOWED distribution and promotion of child porn/ images of child porn/ virtual child porn. These are outward expressions that are not protected. They are not thoughts. Get that through to yourselves.
Bullshit. You prosecute someone for simply possessing a picture, the possession of which caused no harm to anybody, then you're prosecuting a thought crime. I think what you need to distinguish is the difference between the manufacture, which does cause harm, and the possession which is completely irrelevant.
possession is not completely irrelevant.
EDIT: unless you are specifically referring to a picture that is not illegal, like something drawn...then I agree. But if the manufacture of the picture is illegal and does harm, like child porn, then the thoughts are irrelevant...you are in possession of a product that is illegal, and harmed someone.
I don't buy it. The person who made the picture has [conceivably] harmed someone. The person he gives/sells/shows it to has not harmed anyone. If he proceeds to sell it to 20 million people, there has still been no further harm.
You are knowingly contributing to a business that does harm people though. You cant exactly feign ignorance about how this stuff is produced.
-
That presumes that the producer was acting out of a commercial interest and not just trying to get his jollies. I suspect that the number of people who decide to start molesting kiddos for financial gain is pretty much nil compared to those who do it because that's what gets them off.
-
My point is not directed at people who draw some picture, and then get off on it in their own homes. It is when it starts getting distributed that it becomes a problem. Especially if that distribution is legal. Like I said how many times, it promotes child porn, and having sex with a child. The DISTRIBUTION should most certainly be illegal. Stop with the thought crime bullcrap. It has nothing to do with thought crime. Thought crime is made up!
-
So you're talking about people who draw things and then post it online or otherwise share it with other consenting adults?
I still don't see how exactly that is any different from persecuting thought crime.
If I draw a girl taking it hard and fast but don't describe her age and she looks 13-17, then post it online for other drawing enthusiasts to get their rocks off to after agreeing to the terms and conditions of my website which requires you to be 18 years of age and willing to look at my material, am I still breaking the law or encouraging the rape of children?
Its just a huge grey area. You cannot be consistent and although I don't necessarily disagree with you, you cant outlaw or discourage the behavior.
-
My point is not directed at people who draw some picture, and then get off on it in their own homes. It is when it starts getting distributed that it becomes a problem. Especially if that distribution is legal. Like I said how many times, it promotes child porn, and having sex with a child. The DISTRIBUTION should most certainly be illegal. Stop with the thought crime bullcrap. It has nothing to do with thought crime. Thought crime is made up!
I'm honestly trying to see where you're coming from, but I don't get how drawing it and getting off to it would be fine while showing it to other people should be illegal.
-
That presumes that the producer was acting out of a commercial interest and not just trying to get his jollies. I suspect that the number of people who decide to start molesting kiddos for financial gain is pretty much nil compared to those who do it because that's what gets them off.
Wasn't quite my point. By obtaining/purchasing this stuff you are demonstrating demand for material that requires illegal activity to produce, and likely financing it, and thus supporting its production.
-
That presumes that the producer was acting out of a commercial interest and not just trying to get his jollies. I suspect that the number of people who decide to start molesting kiddos for financial gain is pretty much nil compared to those who do it because that's what gets them off.
Wasn't quite my point. By obtaining/purchasing this stuff you are demonstrating demand for material that requires illegal activity to produce, and likely financing it, and thus supporting its production.
Exactly. Same goes with virtual. The problem is, these pedohpiles and child molestors have a sharing community where they distribute it underground. How do you think they get the stuff now?
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing. Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing. The United States should not promote such behaviors. It is not a right that should be granted to citizens. It should not be protected speech. That's what all of this falls under anyways.
-
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing. Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing. The United States should not promote such behaviors. It is not a right that should be granted to citizens. It should not be protected speech. That's what all of this falls under anyways.
Assuming you were replying to me, this doesn't even answer my question. Why is it ok to make it but not give or receive it from someone else?
XJ and El Barto were talking about the "real" stuff, as far as I can tell. It's not the same as what we were talking about.
-
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing. Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing. The United States should not promote such behaviors. It is not a right that should be granted to citizens. It should not be protected speech. That's what all of this falls under anyways.
Assuming you were replying to me, this doesn't even answer my question. Why is it ok to make it but not give or receive it from someone else?
XJ and El Barto were talking about the "real" stuff, as far as I can tell. It's not the same as what we were talking about.
dude, i have addressed your issue of why its bad to distribute it so many times. Seriously. It's there. You can't stop one person from making it and keeping it to themselves. That is ridiculous. But you can stop the distribution of it.
-
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing. Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing. The United States should not promote such behaviors. It is not a right that should be granted to citizens. It should not be protected speech. That's what all of this falls under anyways.
Assuming you were replying to me, this doesn't even answer my question. Why is it ok to make it but not give or receive it from someone else?
XJ and El Barto were talking about the "real" stuff, as far as I can tell. It's not the same as what we were talking about.
dude, i have addressed your issue of why its bad to distribute it so many times. Seriously. It's there. You can't stop one person from making it and keeping it to themselves. That is ridiculous. But you can stop the distribution of it.
The first thing you said on this page implies that you feel possession is fine but giving it to someone isn't. That doesn't make any sense.
-
Man, this thread is all over the place. I'll lay off "the real stuff" argument for now, though I stand by my position.
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing. Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing. The United States should not promote such behaviors. It is not a right that should be granted to citizens. It should not be protected speech. That's what all of this falls under anyways.
Encouragement means precisely jack-shit. You keep denying that there's a thought crime involved, yet your entire argument seems to be that it "encourages" people to go out and collect the real thing. No dice, amigo.
I can [but won't in deference to our fine modding staff] name half a dozen mainstream porn stars that are marketed specifically due to their youthful appeal. Petite, small-chested, ponytails. Should they be prohibited from doing their thing because it might turn people into active pedophiles? It's a real slippery slope when you start trying to regulate things based on what people might do because of it.
-
I was thinking of bringing up sexual roleplay where one person asks the other to pretend to be a kid and ask if that would also "encourage" sex with children, but I'm not too sure of if that's applicable here.
-
Man, this thread is all over the place. I'll lay off "the real stuff" argument for now, though I stand by my position.
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing. Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing. The United States should not promote such behaviors. It is not a right that should be granted to citizens. It should not be protected speech. That's what all of this falls under anyways.
Encouragement means precisely jack-shit. You keep denying that there's a thought crime involved, yet your entire argument seems to be that it "encourages" people to go out and collect the real thing. No dice, amigo.
I can [but won't in deference to our fine modding staff] name half a dozen mainstream porn stars that are marketed specifically due to their youthful appeal. Petite, small-chested, ponytails. Should they be prohibited from doing their thing because it might turn people into active pedophiles? It's a real slippery slope when you start trying to regulate things based on what people might do because of it.
In direct response to this statement, there is a difference between two consenting adults doing something together on camera and child porn real or virtual. No matter how you look at it, child porn is the raping of a child by law. So even virtual child porn is depicting this act. The freedom to distribute this promotes it and says its Ay OK for people to get into it.
And if its ok to let virtual child porn get distributed freely, it will give the message that child porn is OK. Do you see where the link is? I don't understand how no one can follow that logic. That the fake depiction glorifies the real thing.
-
No matter how you look at it, child porn is the raping of a child by law. So even virtual child porn is depicting this act. The freedom to distribute this promotes it and says its Ay OK for people to get into it.
No it doesn't. We widely distribute virtual murder and no one gets the message that murder's ok to "get into."
We move in circles.
-
No matter how you look at it, child porn is the raping of a child by law. So even virtual child porn is depicting this act. The freedom to distribute this promotes it and says its Ay OK for people to get into it.
No it doesn't. We widely distribute virtual murder and no one gets the message that murder's ok to "get into."
We move in circles.
I still hold that murder and child porn are completely different things dealing with completely different parts of the human psyche.
-
Thankfully the part of the brain that decides "I'm watching X, does that mean it's ok for me to do X?" is the same regardless of what X is. Being able to resist murdering someone and resisting your libido for children are likely two very different things, but I have a very hard time believing that seeing the right drawn picture will make them more likely to do it.
-
Thankfully the part of the brain that decides "I'm watching X, does that mean it's ok for me to do X?" is the same regardless of what X is. Being able to resist murdering someone and resisting your libido for children are likely two very different things, but I have a very hard time believing that seeing the right drawn picture will make them more likely to do it.
I disagree. That is all. I have made my point. I can't really say anything more about it so. We will agree to disagree I suppose. Good debate ya'll.
-
@7stringedbeast: You completely ignored my drug analogy, dismissing it as irrelevant, but not stating why it is so. I see it as a perfect comparison.
-
Exactly. Same goes with virtual.
No it doesn't. The production of virtual stuff requires a pencil and a piece of paper. Nothing more.
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.
And not once have you demonstrated that to be the case.
Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.
Again, undemonstrated, and likely false.
The United States should not promote such behaviors.
It isn't. It's acknowledging the right to create works of fiction.
-
Exactly. Same goes with virtual.
No it doesn't. The production of virtual stuff requires a pencil and a piece of paper. Nothing more.
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.
And not once have you demonstrated that to be the case.
Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.
Again, undemonstrated, and likely false.
The United States should not promote such behaviors.
It isn't. It's acknowledging the right to create works of fiction.
You just made this debate your bitch.
-
Exactly. Same goes with virtual.
No it doesn't. The production of virtual stuff requires a pencil and a piece of paper. Nothing more.
Like I said a million times, it encourages the real thing.
And not once have you demonstrated that to be the case.
Because people are eventually going to start looking for the real thing.
Again, undemonstrated, and likely false.
The United States should not promote such behaviors.
It isn't. It's acknowledging the right to create works of fiction.
Find proof of the other side. All you are doing is saying I'm wrong and my opinions aren't merited. Well until you can back yourself up, either are yours. You have done nothing to add to the debate. You are just saying the opposite of what I'm saying and acting like you are proving a point.
-
You're making the positive claims, we're denying those claims. The burden of proof is on you.
-
You're making the positive claims, we're denying those claims. The burden of proof is on you.
That's not true at all. It has to go both ways or neither side is right about anything.
Basically what needs to be found is if virtual porn leads to the real thing or worse. Does virtual child porn deter the real thing or get people into it? That is what needs to be answered. So far it has only been answered with opinions. I was able to find some research relating real child porn to people who have actually harmed a child. At least that is something in the ballpark of what we are talking about (given the belief that I believe the two are closely related (virtual and real child porn). I think the issue has to do with the communities that share this stuff, which I do not think should be covered by freedom of speech.
That's how I feel about it. If someone can show me some kind of hard study that says this is not the case, I will re-think the way I feel about this issue. But currently I stand the way I do because I feel that virtual child porn and its distribution is harmful to the society more than it is good. That's how I feel.
-
https://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html
The government presented four arguments supporting the CPPA's constitutionality. First, it claimed that "virtual child" pornography causes indirect harm to actual children,17 contending that the production of virtual pornographic images can lead to child abuse.18 The Court did not accept the government's indirect harm argument noting instead that "virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children"19 and that "the causal link is contingent and indirect."20 The government relied on the Ferber case, but to no avail. The Free Speech Coalition court held that Ferber provides no support for the elimination of the distinction between actual and "virtual child" pornography.21 In fact, the court in Ferber recognized that some works might have societal value as an alternative means of expression.22
ĥ Second, the government argued that "virtual child" pornography could have the tendency to persuade the audience to commit crimes.23 The Court struck down this argument, stating, "the prospect of crime, however, by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech."24 Even if virtual pornography encourages unlawful acts, "it is not a sufficient reason for banning it."25 "The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse" therefore, the government may not prohibit the speech expressed in "virtual child" pornography based on this unsupported argument.26 The government can punish the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children and punish people who provide explicit materials to children in order to seduce or convince the child to engage in sexual activities.27 Also, the government may not prohibit adults from material protected by free speech in an attempt to prevent children from obtaining it.28
ĥ Third, the government argued that eliminating the market for actual child pornography was a sufficient reason for the Court to uphold the constitutionality of the law.29 The Court disagreed and noted that the market for actual child pornography might be eliminated if there was an alternative source.30 "If virtual images were identical to illegal child pornography, the illegal images would be driven from the market by the indistinguishable substitutes. Few pornographers would risk prosecution by abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice."31 The Court held that virtual pornography does not necessarily promote the market for actual child pornography and recognized the distinction between the two.32 The Court stated that the government's market theory was unpersuasive especially because there is no crime involved in "virtual child" pornography since no children are used in the production of the work.33
ĥ Fourth, the government also argued that "virtual child" pornography could result in more difficult prosecutions of actual child molesters and pornographers since the virtual images look so realistic.34 The government wants to pass this difficulty on to the potential defendant through the statute's affirmative defense option.35 The defendant can rely on the affirmative defense if he can prove that the alleged child pornography was made using real persons who were adults and the material was not marketed as depicting children.36 The affirmative defense option raises other constitutional concerns because the defendant would have the burden of proving that the material was protected by the First Amendment. The Court noted that, "the Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected speech merely because it resembles the latter."37 All four of the government's arguments were unsuccessful and the Supreme Court held that the CPPA was unconstitutionally overbroad.38
-
Lets pretend you are right. Even if it does make you to rape a child or at least seek a willing one out to have sex, you are still not breaking the law as thoughts, desires, etc are not causing harm to anyone. When you act, you should be prosecuted. Before that and there is no way to fairly control or prevent the behavior.
-
Basically what needs to be found is if virtual porn leads to the real thing or worse. Does virtual child porn deter the real thing or get people into it? That is what needs to be answered. So far it has only been answered with opinions. I was able to find some research relating real child porn to people who have actually harmed a child. At least that is something in the ballpark of what we are talking about (given the belief that I believe the two are closely related (virtual and real child porn). I think the issue has to do with the communities that share this stuff, which I do not think should be covered by freedom of speech.
That's how I feel about it. If someone can show me some kind of hard study that says this is not the case, I will re-think the way I feel about this issue. But currently I stand the way I do because I feel that virtual child porn and its distribution is harmful to the society more than it is good. That's how I feel.
I didn't say you were wrong, I said you haven't proved what you are stating. All you have done in this thread is repeat your personal feelings on the issue repeatedly.
As for the statistics, I very much doubt any definitive statements could be drawn on any conclusion. Lets face it, if asked in a questionnaire, who the hell is going to answer honestly about whether they look at this stuff given the stigma attached to it?
-
One of the problems is the government and people in general do not want studies to be done about pedophilia. We don't want to know about it. We don't want to know how it works or how it affects a child. The ONLY time a study is allowed is when it makes the pedophiles look monsters and the kids look like poor victimized empty souls.
I don't have a source (seriously, I need to save this shit) that says the government halts pedophile studies that seek to discover more about the attraction and how it's formed, but I'm sure it happens a lot more than you would think.
-
One of the problems is the government and people in general do not want studies to be done about pedophilia. We don't want to know about it. We don't want to know how it works or how it affects a child. The ONLY time a study is allowed is when it makes the pedophiles look monsters and the kids look like poor victimized empty souls.
I don't have a source (seriously, I need to save this shit) that says the government halts pedophile studies that seek to discover more about the attraction and how it's formed, but I'm sure it happens a lot more than you would think.
I'm sorry but when does a pedophile not look like a monster? Are you trying to justify pedophilia? Are you actually defending it? And yeah, the children ARE victimized by it. Taking advantage of a child is so wrong. It's right up there with rape and murder. Shit, even murderers think people who sexually abuse children are terrible people. What could you possibly be trying to get at here?
A lot of people develop a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons. Pedophilia can never be justified or qualified. Seriously, Icy, what are you trying to get at?
-
One of the problems is the government and people in general do not want studies to be done about pedophilia. We don't want to know about it. We don't want to know how it works or how it affects a child. The ONLY time a study is allowed is when it makes the pedophiles look monsters and the kids look like poor victimized empty souls.
I don't have a source (seriously, I need to save this shit) that says the government halts pedophile studies that seek to discover more about the attraction and how it's formed, but I'm sure it happens a lot more than you would think.
I'm sorry but when does a pedophile not look like a monster? Are you trying to justify pedophilia? Are you actually defending it? And yeah, the children ARE victimized by it. Taking advantage of a child is so wrong. It's right up there with rape and murder. Shit, even murderers think people who sexually abuse children are terrible people. What could you possibly be trying to get at here?
A lot of people develop a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons. Pedophilia can never be justified or qualified. Seriously, Icy, what are you trying to get at?
Read the Hughes for Governer! thread if you would like my stance on pedophilia. (paraphrase in the edit)
EDIT: I don't think pedophilia is wrong. Being attracted to children is not something you can help. I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself. I don't support having sex with children. But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread. If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand.
-
I realy didn't want to get into this again but Icy,
"I don't think pedophilia is wrong. Being attracted to children is not something you can help. I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself. I don't support having sex with children. But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread. If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand".
You are wrong. Wanting to have sex with a prepubescent is a sickness. It's not two consenting adults that mentally and physically can handle sex. It is a sickness.
-
You're making the positive claims, we're denying those claims. The burden of proof is on you.
That's not true at all. It has to go both ways or neither side is right about anything.
Basically what needs to be found is if virtual porn leads to the real thing or worse. Does virtual child porn deter the real thing or get people into it? That is what needs to be answered. So far it has only been answered with opinions. I was able to find some research relating real child porn to people who have actually harmed a child. At least that is something in the ballpark of what we are talking about (given the belief that I believe the two are closely related (virtual and real child porn). I think the issue has to do with the communities that share this stuff, which I do not think should be covered by freedom of speech.
That's how I feel about it. If someone can show me some kind of hard study that says this is not the case, I will re-think the way I feel about this issue. But currently I stand the way I do because I feel that virtual child porn and its distribution is harmful to the society more than it is good. That's how I feel.
What you're going to find is that plenty of people who fuck children will say that they dig kiddie porn, both real and virtual. That means precisely jack shit. Aside from good ole correlation does not imply causation, there's still the issue that you can't go around banning anything that might lead some people to improper behavior. Those same people who got their kicks with kiddie porn probably also watched a boatload of Nickelodeon. They probably preferred their mainstream porn to include those aforementioned young looking actresses. I'll bet they also enjoyed hanging around at beaches and public pools from time to time. I'm sure you're not going to suggest that those things should be banned as well.
-
If we're arguing prepubsecent, then I agree more with kingsypoo than Icy. I won't call it a sickness, but coming even from a strict psychological and/or evolutionary point of view, it's not something that's natural and probably has psychological factors influencing it more than most other sexual desires. However, this argument only works with prepubescent kids, which is why I see nothing wrong with girls 14 or so and up.
-
kingsypoo
Hey! Only my wife can can call me that. ;D
-
I realy didn't want to get into this again but Icy,
"I don't think pedophilia is wrong. Being attracted to children is not something you can help. I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself. I don't support having sex with children. But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread. If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand".
You are wrong. Wanting to have sex with a prepubescent is a sickness. It's not two consenting adults that mentally and physically can handle sex. It is a sickness.
Again with the thought crimes. It is THOUGHTS. THOUGHTS CAN'T CONSENT WHETHER THEY ARE ABOUT A 6 YEAR OLD OR A 60 YEAR OLD. THEY ARE THOUGHTS.
-
dude there is no such thing as a thought crime. What the hell? This is not minority report here (a fictional movie) Thought crimes do not exist.
It's the outward expression of pedophilia that is bad. Not the inward thought of it. No one can get arrested for liking little kids in that way, as long as they don't do anything outward about it.
-
If there is an outward expression of pedophilia made by raping or having sex with a child, that person should be arrested. If there is no offending act, what is the issue?
-
If there is an outward expression of pedophilia made by raping or having sex with a child, that person should be arrested. If there is no offending act, what is the issue?
I suppose none. You just gotta hope that person isn't a ticking time bomb until they finally can't take it anymore and do something about their inward desires and emotions. How long can a person go without letting anything out? I don't know.
-
Aren't they letting it out by channeling it into a nonviolent activity like drawing? Some people are ticking time bombs because of their circumstances, childhood, or parents. But I think there is not enough evidence to say on average pedophiles and people who are into hentai and other fetish porn are just itching to violently rape a child or commit any other crime.
-
I realy didn't want to get into this again but Icy,
"I don't think pedophilia is wrong. Being attracted to children is not something you can help. I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself. I don't support having sex with children. But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread. If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand".
You are wrong. Wanting to have sex with a prepubescent is a sickness. It's not two consenting adults that mentally and physically can handle sex. It is a sickness.
Again with the thought crimes. It is THOUGHTS. THOUGHTS CAN'T CONSENT WHETHER THEY ARE ABOUT A 6 YEAR OLD OR A 60 YEAR OLD. THEY ARE THOUGHTS.
Icy, if they haven't done the deed then they are not a pedophile, but you say it's not a sickness but a sexuality and I'm saying that it is a sickness.
-
dude there is no such thing as a thought crime. What the hell? This is not minority report here (a fictional movie) Thought crimes do not exist.
It's the outward expression of pedophilia that is bad. Not the inward thought of it. No one can get arrested for liking little kids in that way, as long as they don't do anything outward about it.
We're talking about punishing people for acts that need not necessarily have harmed any person. The crime is based entirely on the principle of the matter. I characterize that as a thought crime.
Here's a dandy example. All throughout highschool, I dated a particularly raunchy young lady from the neighboring suburb. I can assure you that if we had access to cheap digital cameras, cellphone cameras, webcams, etc. in 1985, the two of us would have amassed an absolutely extraordinary collection of homemade video that by the standards of any country in the Western hemisphere would have constituted hard core child pornography. I am absolutely positive that neither of us were victimized or harmed in any way by our exploits. I was legally within in my right to bang the bejeezus out of this girl, but keeping a few mementos of it would have landed either of us in prison.
How is this not a thought crime?
-
dude there is no such thing as a thought crime. What the hell? This is not minority report here (a fictional movie) Thought crimes do not exist.
It's the outward expression of pedophilia that is bad. Not the inward thought of it. No one can get arrested for liking little kids in that way, as long as they don't do anything outward about it.
We're talking about punishing people for acts that need not necessarily have harmed any person. The crime is based entirely on the principle of the matter. I characterize that as a thought crime.
Here's a dandy example. All throughout highschool, I dated a particularly raunchy young lady from the neighboring suburb. I can assure you that if we had access to cheap digital cameras, cellphone cameras, webcams, etc. in 1985, the two of us would have amassed an absolutely extraordinary collection of homemade video that by the standards of any country in the Western hemisphere would have constituted hard core child pornography. I am absolutely positive that neither of us were victimized or harmed in any way by our exploits. I was legally within in my right to bang the bejeezus out of this girl, but keeping a few mementos of it would have landed either of us in prison.
How is this not a thought crime?
Actually in America, it's against the law to have sex under 18, even if both parties are under 18. Which is stupid. but if some girl or her parents got pissed off enough, she can press rape charges on you because she can't consent. That's besides the point though.
I realy didn't want to get into this again but Icy,
"I don't think pedophilia is wrong. Being attracted to children is not something you can help. I don't believe it is a sickness, but rather a sexuality in itself. I don't support having sex with children. But we aren't debating whether pedophiles are sick or a sexuality or monsters in this thread. If you want to debate whether pedophiles are good or bad, do it in the hughes thread, because we should keep the current thread steady with the topic at hand".
You are wrong. Wanting to have sex with a prepubescent is a sickness. It's not two consenting adults that mentally and physically can handle sex. It is a sickness.
Again with the thought crimes. It is THOUGHTS. THOUGHTS CAN'T CONSENT WHETHER THEY ARE ABOUT A 6 YEAR OLD OR A 60 YEAR OLD. THEY ARE THOUGHTS.
Icy, if they haven't done the deed then they are not a pedophile, but you say it's not a sickness but a sexuality and I'm saying that it is a sickness.
pe·do·phile
/ˈpidəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled[pee-duh-fahyl]
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children
by your definition, the dictionary definition should be changed to:
pe·do·phile
/ˈpidəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled[pee-duh-fahyl]
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who bangs young children
But you're definition ISN'T the correct one. Why are you spewing off random definitions when it's simple to just look in a dictionary.
-
dude there is no such thing as a thought crime. What the hell? This is not minority report here (a fictional movie) Thought crimes do not exist.
It's the outward expression of pedophilia that is bad. Not the inward thought of it. No one can get arrested for liking little kids in that way, as long as they don't do anything outward about it.
We're talking about punishing people for acts that need not necessarily have harmed any person. The crime is based entirely on the principle of the matter. I characterize that as a thought crime.
Here's a dandy example. All throughout highschool, I dated a particularly raunchy young lady from the neighboring suburb. I can assure you that if we had access to cheap digital cameras, cellphone cameras, webcams, etc. in 1985, the two of us would have amassed an absolutely extraordinary collection of homemade video that by the standards of any country in the Western hemisphere would have constituted hard core child pornography. I am absolutely positive that neither of us were victimized or harmed in any way by our exploits. I was legally within in my right to bang the bejeezus out of this girl, but keeping a few mementos of it would have landed either of us in prison.
How is this not a thought crime?
Actually in America, it's against the law to have sex under 18, even if both parties are under 18. Which is stupid. but if some girl or her parents got pissed off enough, she can press rape charges on you because she can't consent. That's besides the point though.
There are no federal laws concerning this situation. She was over 12 and we didn't cross state lines. While it's true that kiddos dont have the legal right to get after it, most states have exclusions for this type of occurrence. Here in Texas:
Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT.(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor was not more than three years older than the victim, and the victim was a child of 14 years of age or older.
-
Again icy you can't do anything to a person who wants to have sex with a child unless he's caught with material. So other people don't kmow he or she is a pedophile unless you get caught. That was my point. I think we all know what a pedophile is and you defend their so called sexual preferences which is laughable. Again pull up something else pointless to defer that fact that your idea of a sexual preferance is messed up.
-
Icy, if they haven't done the deed then they are not a pedophile
You keep saying this, but every definition of "Pedophilia" that's been brought up has disagreed.
edit:
Actually in America, it's against the law to have sex under 18, even if both parties are under 18. Which is stupid. but if some girl or her parents got pissed off enough, she can press rape charges on you because she can't consent. That's besides the point though.
Like El Barto said, this is something that's handled state by state. As for how it works in PA, basically if both are over 12 years old and the two people are within 4 years of eachother then it's fine. For cases like one person being 16 and the other being 18, it's up to the "common sense of the community."
-
erha, what I meant is you can't do anything to or for pedophile is you don't know they are one. I mistyped what I meant.
-
Again icy you can't do anything to a person who wants to have sex with a child unless he's caught with material. So other people don't kmow he or she is a pedophile unless you get caught. That was my point. I think we all know what a pedophile is and you defend their so called sexual preferences which is laughable. Again pull up something else pointless to defer that fact that your idea of a sexual preferance is messed up.
Tell me one reason why being sexually and/or romantically attracted to another being does not make it a sexual preference. Other than "They can't consent" because the issue of consent doesn't matter here, because it's only a preference. I'm not talking about the act. I'm talking about someone being attracted to a certain thing. how is it not a sexuality.
-
Again icy you can't do anything to a person who wants to have sex with a child unless he's caught with material. So other people don't kmow he or she is a pedophile unless you get caught. That was my point. I think we all know what a pedophile is and you defend their so called sexual preferences which is laughable. Again pull up something else pointless to defer that fact that your idea of a sexual preferance is messed up.
Tell me one reason why being sexually and/or romantically attracted to another being does not make it a sexual preference. Other than "They can't consent" because the issue of consent doesn't matter here, because it's only a preference. I'm not talking about the act. I'm talking about someone being attracted to a certain thing. how is it not a sexuality.
What you are saying makes sense. Of course it is a sexuality. It is just an unhealthy and deviant one.
-
Again icy you can't do anything to a person who wants to have sex with a child unless he's caught with material. So other people don't kmow he or she is a pedophile unless you get caught. That was my point. I think we all know what a pedophile is and you defend their so called sexual preferences which is laughable. Again pull up something else pointless to defer that fact that your idea of a sexual preferance is messed up.
Tell me one reason why being sexually and/or romantically attracted to another being does not make it a sexual preference. Other than "They can't consent" because the issue of consent doesn't matter here, because it's only a preference. I'm not talking about the act. I'm talking about someone being attracted to a certain thing. how is it not a sexuality.
What you are saying makes sense. Of course it is a sexuality. It is just an unhealthy and deviant one.
[/quot
what eric said. Stop with the semantics, erha. We all know it's wrong. If an adult wants to do something to an adult, go ahead, do as you please. But prepubescents should be hands off.
-
what eric said. Stop with the semantics, erha. We all know it's wrong. If an adult wants to do something to an adult, go ahead, do as you please. But prepubescents should be hands off.
1) Who has said otherwise?
2) What does what eric said even have to do with me?
-
what eric said. Stop with the semantics, erha. We all know it's wrong. If an adult wants to do something to an adult, go ahead, do as you please. But prepubescents should be hands off.
1) Who has said otherwise?
2) What does what eric said even have to do with me?
It has nothing to do with you. I just agreed with eric.
-
Then what was the "stop with the semantics, ehra." comment about?
-
Sex is about two people who want(consensual) to have sex together. When talking about children who are prepubescent, they cannot physically or mentally undrestand sex. To me the definition of a pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to child. To me, it's just wrong to think it's a preference. A child has no say to his preference because he or she is not capable to answer that.
I don't care if 2 adults want to have same gender sex, diapers and bonnets, cucumbers, midgets, blondes only. Those are sexual preferences. A grown up wanting sex with a prepubescent is a sickness because it involves wanting to have sex with someone who cannot, have, or comprehend or consent.
Now, the thought police stuff, is just silly. But a first step to becoming a pedophile is owning pictures and videos. I have no problem with the police going after this. Mabye they do time, mabye they get court appointed help.
The semantics is bringing up a definition is silly when, I'll take a leap, you think it's wrong to and mabye we are both going around trying to say the same thing. My beef with icy is that he seems so casual about pedophiles and wants to protect their right to be able to think like that. I've seen the affect of it first hand and this topic should never be taken lightly. If I offended you, I'm sorry. But it is something that I am very passionate about.
-
If you want to sentence people caught with child porn (not making it, just having it) to court appointed therapy or help or whatever, fine. But doing time for not hurting someone is just not right. Especially considering the kind of people that inmates become. If someone is caught abusing a child (prebuscent) in anyway way, they should do some time. But if someone downloads a picture, or a drawing or whatever, they shouldn't have to go to jail where they were will more than likely be brutalized and destroyed for it.
-
If you want to sentence people caught with child porn (not making it, just having it) to court appointed therapy or help or whatever, fine. But doing time for not hurting someone is just not right. Especially considering the kind of people that inmates become. If someone is caught abusing a child (prebuscent) in anyway way, they should do some time. But if someone downloads a picture, or a drawing or whatever, they shouldn't have to go to jail where they were will more than likely be brutalized and destroyed for it.
Well it's against the law so if they have to do time so be it. If you know it could land you in jail, don't do it.
Im not saying to lock the key and throw them away. I'd rather see them get help first.
-
I'm saying I don't agree with the law. If everyone accepted every law without question, america would be a very very very horrible place. The whole world would be.
-
As for the thought police thing, I'd like to clarify that. I'm not talking about some Minority Report thing. When somebody is arrested, tried and convicted of a crime that hurt nobody, but is prosecuted because society as a whole has deemed it immoral, I consider that a thought crime. There really are people who've been imprisoned for downloading CGI kiddie porn. Nobody was hurt by it, and doesn't increase the risk to society at large any more than countless other things might. As far as I'm concerned, it's going after somebody strictly because you disapprove of what he or she likes to look at when they whack off. That is a thought crime.
If you want to sentence people caught with child porn (not making it, just having it) to court appointed therapy or help or whatever, fine. But doing time for not hurting someone is just not right. Especially considering the kind of people that inmates become. If someone is caught abusing a child (prebuscent) in anyway way, they should do some time. But if someone downloads a picture, or a drawing or whatever, they shouldn't have to go to jail where they were will more than likely be brutalized and destroyed for it.
I read an article this morning about some asshole that framed his boss for being a child pornographer. He copied pics/vids onto his computer then dropped a dime on him. Even though his boss was never convicted (for reasons they didn't explain), it absolutely destroyed the man's life. He lost his job. He was beat up by strangers. He had to move. This went on for a year and a half until the dipshit that did it got himself busted. We've gotten to a point where the mere suggestion that you have a thing for kiddos instantly makes you the absolute scum of the Earth, deserving of the worst possible things that can be done to you. As I've said before, the instant the "think of the children!" mentality comes into play, people absolutely loose their fucking minds. This really is one of my biggest issues with society as a whole.
-
That's why logic should play a much higher role than emotion. Sorry kings.
-
The semantics is bringing up a definition is silly when, I'll take a leap, you think it's wrong to and mabye we are both going around trying to say the same thing.
Not really. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees that having sex with a kid below 13 or whatever is pretty fucked up. It's pretty much everything else that the actual arguments have been out, and it doesn't help to have a discussion about "pedophilia" when one person is using their own made up definition of it. Because then we get arguments like this that don't make any sense:
But a first step to becoming a pedophile is owning pictures and videos.
If someone's looking for these videos and pictures then I'm going to say that chances are high that they already are a pedophile.
-
The semantics is bringing up a definition is silly when, I'll take a leap, you think it's wrong to and mabye we are both going around trying to say the same thing.
Not really. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees that having sex with a kid below 13 or whatever is pretty fucked up. It's pretty much everything else that the actual arguments have been out, and it doesn't help to have a discussion about "pedophilia" when one person is using their own made up definition of it. Because then we get arguments like this that don't make any sense:
But a first step to becoming a pedophile is owning pictures and videos.
If someone's looking for these videos and pictures then I'm going to say that chances are high that they already are a pedophile.
this.
My beef with icy is that he seems so casual about pedophiles and wants to protect their right to be able to think like that. I've seen the affect of it first hand and this topic should never be taken lightly. If I offended you, I'm sorry. But it is something that I am very passionate about.
Well is you're basing your whole argument off of personal bias then maybe you don't belong in this debate...considering you aren't providing any factual evidence, but rather "I've seen this happen"
It reminds me of a psycho chick who got raped and now doesn't trust any men whatsoever because of what happened. There are plenty of great guys out there. The ones who will rape a girl make up a fraction of a fraction of the male population. However because she met that one bad guy, she doesn't trust any at all.
I do sympathize with you. I understand you. Trust me. If something like that happened to me, I would have a hard time accepting all of this too. I know I would. But sometimes you have to cut off your emotional ties and just try to listen to someone else's point of view. If no one did that, nothing in history would change, ever.
-
Sex is about two people who want(consensual) to have sex together. When talking about children who are prepubescent, they cannot physically or mentally undrestand sex. To me the definition of a pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to child. To me, it's just wrong to think it's a preference. A child has no say to his preference because he or she is not capable to answer that.
I don't care if 2 adults want to have same gender sex, diapers and bonnets, cucumbers, midgets, blondes only. Those are sexual preferences. A grown up wanting sex with a prepubescent is a sickness because it involves wanting to have sex with someone who cannot, have, or comprehend or consent.
Now, the thought police stuff, is just silly. But a first step to becoming a pedophile is owning pictures and videos. I have no problem with the police going after this. Mabye they do time, mabye they get court appointed help.
The semantics is bringing up a definition is silly when, I'll take a leap, you think it's wrong to and mabye we are both going around trying to say the same thing. My beef with icy is that he seems so casual about pedophiles and wants to protect their right to be able to think like that. I've seen the affect of it first hand and this topic should never be taken lightly. If I offended you, I'm sorry. But it is something that I am very passionate about.
I agree strongly with this man.
-
icy, I'm not mad at you at all so if I come off that way I'm sorry. I disagree with you. The look on my nephews eyes when I bolted through the door only to get in a 5 minute scrum, breaking my ribs and seeing the emotional and pysical damage that asshole caused is enough to make me not trust a person that wants to have sex with a kid.
I personally don't have a problem with police doing their jobs when a person has or trades pictures that are illeagal. I saw El Barto's post and I feel for the guy but there is more good, in my eyes, than bad when it comes to policing a predators.
-
We're not talking about predators. We all want to see real predators get busted. We're talking about people who jerk off looking at cartoons.
-
Kingsypoo (tell your wife she can fight me for it), can you agree that people who find themselves sexually attracted to children can't help the attraction? Whether it's a sickness, or a preferance, can we agree they can't just switch off the desire?
Now, assuming that. They have thee main options, (amongst others I'm sure).
1. Rape children
2. Completely surpress all of their desires and most likely explode eventually and rape children
3. Jack off to pictures/fake children or whatever to control the urges.
Seriously, which would you rather they choose?
And "get help" isn't an answer. We can't assume all of them can afford it, and those who can might be so ashamed of it that they don't want to tell anyone.
Edit: I think we can lump some priests into option 2. We've seen how well that worked out.
-
icy, I'm not mad at you at all so if I come off that way I'm sorry. I disagree with you. The look on my nephews eyes when I bolted through the door only to get in a 5 minute scrum, breaking my ribs and seeing the emotional and pysical damage that asshole caused is enough to make me not trust a person that wants to have sex with a kid.
I personally don't have a problem with police doing their jobs when a person has or trades pictures that are illeagal. I saw El Barto's post and I feel for the guy but there is more good, in my eyes, than bad when it comes to policing a predators.
I'm not mad at you, either. :)
All I'm trying to say is you have to look at strong facts if you're going to debate, because basing it all off of something that happened personally to you holds no weight. The facts are:
i. The majority of pedophiles want to live their lives as normal members of society, and do not want to have sex with children.
ii. The majority of child abuse is done by people who want to take advantage of someone, NOT someone who is attracted to children. They just know children are easy targets.
-
You know, I'm gonna go ahead and put this out there, even though I'm not sure how people are going to react to it.
Icy is what? 15 according to his profile. I think he seems so "casual" about protecting pedophiles because, for him, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to see pictures of what all his jailbait friends look like without clothes on, regardless of what society might say. In fact, he may have a girlfriend that age or even a couple of years younger, or know of people who do, and I'm not going to say it's wrong for kids that age to full around, though I know plenty of people will disagree.
Regardless, that doesn't really make Icy a prime candidate to decide what kinds of images are appropriate for an adult to create or view. The fact is, if you're out of puberty and still have a thing for girls who aren't, you may have a problem, because it's never good to have sexual desires that are legally and morally unfulfillable. I'm not saying that problem can only be solved via imprisonment, but I think those people at least need some pyschological help.
-
You know, I'm gonna go ahead and put this out there, even though I'm not sure how people are going to react to it.
Icy is what? 15 according to his profile. I think he seems so "casual" about protecting pedophiles because, for him, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to see pictures of what all his jailbait friends look like without clothes on, regardless of what society might say. In fact, he may have a girlfriend that age or even a couple of years younger, or know of people who do, and I'm not going to say it's wrong for kids that age to full around, though I know plenty of people will disagree.
Regardless, that doesn't really make Icy a prime candidate to decide what kinds of images are appropriate for an adult to create or view. The fact is, if you're out of puberty and still have a thing for girls who aren't, you may have a problem, because it's never good to have sexual desires that are legally and morally unfulfillable. I'm not saying that problem can only be solved via imprisonment, but I think those people at least need some pyschological help.
Thanks for trying to understand, I'll give you that. But that isn't all. I just don't believe in hating people when they aren't hurting anybody.
-
Let's keep in mind that help isn't really a viable option in today's climate. If I had an urge to bang little kids, I'd certainly do everything I could to control it on my own, but there's absolutely no way I'd ever try to get help that involved any other person. Doctor/patient privilege sounds great and all, but in reality, no way. As I pointed earlier regarding that article, the mere suggestion that you're into children is a big-time GAME OVER.
King, you said earlier that there's more good than bad in reference to the article I mentioned. Well, there's one of those little unintended consequences that so often fuck up an otherwise reasonable notion.
-
In all fairness, EB, this isn't a perfect world, and there will ALWAYS be someone who gets screwed by the system, regardless of what system we're talking about. A system shouldn't be judged by its exceptions/mishaps, unless and until the number of said exceptions/mishaps becomes untenable.
-
Hey everybody. I'm a bit busy today at work to type out a long reply to you all and we've got company comming over tonight so I'll respond Saturday.
Oh and Adami, my wife says that she'd never add "poo" at the end to describe me. She says asshole is more appropriate. :laugh:
-
In all fairness, EB, this isn't a perfect world, and there will ALWAYS be someone who gets screwed by the system, regardless of what system we're talking about. A system shouldn't be judged by its exceptions/mishaps, unless and until the number of said exceptions/mishaps becomes untenable.
I agree. I wasn't describing an exception. I was pointing out that the current system fosters an environment that makes actually seeking help extraordinarily stupid. The more ravenous people become concerning the subject, the less reasonable it is to expect people to voluntarily seek therapy. This is a systemic effect, not an exception.
-
I miss kingsypoo. :(
-
I found a quote that relates to obscenity laws quite well:
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
-Larry Flynt
-
I miss kingsypoo. :(
Sorry icy. It's been a busy weekend and I was only to pop in for a few minutes a day and can't give a good amount od time I should to this. I try durring the week.
-
I miss kingsypoo. :(
Sorry icy. It's been a busy weekend and I was only to pop in for a few minutes a day and can't give a good amount od time I should to this. I try durring the week.
No problem, I know you're busy. It's just this is a 1-sided debate without you. ;)
-
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five Pedophiles and one child voting on what to have for sex.
-Larry Flynt
-
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five Pedophiles and one child voting on what to have for sex.
-Larry Flynt
I'm sorry, but
:rollin :rollin :rollin
-
Even I laughed at that :lol
Although I hope that wasn't a serious effort to turn my point against me..because if so it failed.
-
Yeah that was a joke more than anything. However, I still feel you are dead wrong concerning everything. But yeah, that was a joke.
-
Yeah that was a joke more than anything. However, I still feel you are dead wrong concerning everything. But yeah, that was a joke.
Oh, okay :)
-
I'm not so sure the point failed, either.
-
Considering we're not talking about if anyone should be allowed to have sex with children, I'm going to say it did.
-
Considering we're not talking about if anyone should be allowed to have sex with children, I'm going to say it did.
That's fine.
-
Considering we're not talking about if anyone should be allowed to have sex with children, I'm going to say it did.
-
It's about time I got back to this thread, Right icy? ;)
I think that I look at pedophilia as a sexual perversion and not a sexual preference. It's too deviant to label it a preference. To me, labeling it a perversion sounds right. I know you can say that it fits the definition of preference buy to me it shouldn't be classified the same way as someone who wants to have same sex or likes blondes, or zucchini.
Mabye this definition will cloudy or help my point.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+Perversions
-
It's about time I got back to this thread, Right icy? ;)
I think that I look at pedophilia as a sexual perversion and not a sexual preference. It's too deviant to label it a preference. To me, labeling it a perversion sounds right. I know you can say that it fits the definition of preference buy to me it shouldn't be classified the same way as someone who wants to have same sex or likes blondes, or zucchini.
Mabye this definition will cloudy or help my point.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+Perversions
Which can bring me back to a point that there is nothing wrong with the individual itself, but rather the way society views him/her. It says it's sexual arousal, ect. to something that society deems unnormal. So while you may be right that it isn't as common as being hetero or homosexual, it still is no different from either one (the process in the brain, not the acts that go with it) other than the fact that society doesn't like it.
-
There are certain urges that one should not act on. Yes a person can have stimuli from different places but it doesn't make it right. Some urges are abnormal, and that is one of them. Icy there is a difference to 2 grown ups with the same urges and then one grown up forcing his or her urges on a person that doesn't want or understand those urges. It's not looked apon the same and there's a good reason why.
-
There are certain urges that one should not act on. Yes a person can have stimuli from different places but it doesn't make it right. Some urges are abnormal, and that is one of them. Icy there is a difference to 2 grown ups with the same urges and then one grown up forcing his or her urges on a person that doesn't want or understand those urges. It's not looked apon the same and there's a good reason why.
But we aren't talking about acts. We're talking about thoughts.
-
About acts.
Just sayin'.
-
About acts.
Just sayin'.
And people think of murder all the time. Does that make them criminals or necessarily sick? no. Because you can't honestly say you've never thought about murder...
-
About acts.
Just sayin'.
And people think of murder all the time. Does that make them criminals or necessarily sick? no. Because you can't honestly say you've never thought about murder...
The answer to that is no. Pulverize(sp)? Yes. We know it's not illeagal to have those thoughts icy, but those who think that are in a minority that, dare I say most likely to act on. We all throw the line out I'll kill you, but we don't mean it in those terms. But there are a small minority that would kill you because they are mentally not stable.
I understand that thoughts are not illeagal but if they are having these thought, they are dangerous to children. It's a dangerous line with answers we all won't like.
-
About acts.
Just sayin'.
And people think of murder all the time. Does that make them criminals or necessarily sick? no. Because you can't honestly say you've never thought about murder...
The answer to that is no. Pulverize(sp)? Yes. We know it's not illeagal to have those thoughts icy, but those who think that are in a minority that, dare I say most likely to act on. We all throw the line out I'll kill you, but we don't mean it in those terms. But there are a small minority that would kill you because they are mentally not stable.
I understand that thoughts are not illeagal but if they are having these thought, they are dangerous to children. It's a dangerous line with answers we all won't like.
The same applies to pedophiles. The minority will hurt a child, and THAT'S where the problem lies. They didn't hurt a child because they are a pedophile, they hurt a child because they are mentally fucked.
-
...because they're pedophiles.
-
...because they're pedophiles.
Is it that you genuinely don't understand what I'm saying, or is it that you are willingly ignorant?
-
Look, here is what I think: your position that pedophilia is a genuine sexuality that should be respected is wrong. And here is why I say that. There is more to a real sexuality than who you want to diddle. Heterosexuals want to be in relationships with other heterosexuals, not just have sex with them. Homosexuals want to be in relationships with other homosexuals, not just have sex with them (hence the push to legalize gay marriage). Pedophilia is not like that. There is no real relationship to be had between a pedophile and the object of his passion (much like necrophilia, or treeophilia, or whatever else there is out there). There is no give and take - there is only take, and that taking involves more than just physicality, but also a sense of authority and borders and all kinds of other things. In a way, seeking to equate pedophilia with an actual sexuality is a slap in the face to all the strides that have been made in the area of gay rights over the last 25 years. And please, I don't want to hear anymore about thoughts, or your so-called majority of pedophiles that haven't actually touched a child. They haven't touched one yet, or they haven't been caught. If they have child porn, then a child was violated in the making of that porn, so their possession is a party to it. I have never heard of a case of a pedophile only being caught with child porn art or cartoons. But even if they were, that is still an indication of an unnatural sexual leaning, like I mentioned above.
Frankly, the most disturbing thing about your point of view is your age.
Now, if none of that makes a dent in your thinking, then we probably really are done with this discussion, because neither of us will budge from our viewpoints. But please, either way, enough of the "you don't understand what I'm saying" comments. Because yes, I do, and I'm sure that everyone else does, too. And no, people don't think about murder all the time.
-
Look, here is what I think: your position that pedophilia is a genuine sexuality that should be respected is wrong. And here is why I say that. There is more to a real sexuality than who you want to diddle. Heterosexuals want to be in relationships with other heterosexuals, not just have sex with them. Homosexuals want to be in relationships with other homosexuals, not just have sex with them (hence the push to legalize gay marriage). Pedophilia is not like that. There is no real relationship to be had between a pedophile and the object of his passion (much like necrophilia, or treeophilia, or whatever else there is out there). There is no give and take - there is only take, and that taking involves more than just physicality, but also a sense of authority and borders and all kinds of other things. In a way, seeking to equate pedophilia with an actual sexuality is a slap in the face to all the strides that have been made in the area of gay rights over the last 25 years. And please, I don't want to hear anymore about thoughts, or your so-called majority of pedophiles that haven't actually touched a child. They haven't touched one yet, or they haven't been caught. If they have child porn, then a child was violated in the making of that porn, so their possession is a party to it. I have never heard of a case of a pedophile only being caught with child porn art or cartoons. But even if they were, that is still an indication of an unnatural sexual leaning, like I mentioned above.
Frankly, the most disturbing thing about your point of view is your age.
Now, if none of that makes a dent in your thinking, then we probably really are done with this discussion, because neither of us will budge from our viewpoints. But please, either way, enough of the "you don't understand what I'm saying" comments. Because yes, I do, and I'm sure that everyone else does, too. And no, people don't think about murder all the time.
Actually, pedophiles do wish to have relationships with children. Whether or not those children are mature enough to have a relationship is irrelevant to the fact it's the same thoughts, feelings, emotions, and mental process for any other sexuality.
-
That's why he said there's no real relationship to be had, not that they don't want one.
-
I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder. If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child. If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder. So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder? Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically. But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.
Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children. Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.
-
Hef, thank you for articulating it better than I could ever do.
-
Whether or not those children are mature enough to have a relationship is irrelevant to the fact it's the same thoughts, feelings, emotions, and mental process for any other sexuality.
No it isn't irrelevant.
But I guess that's how we'll have to leave it.
-
I suppose so.
Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children. Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.
And what makes either of those sick other than subjective standards?
-
Sorry, but what point are you trying to make there? Subjectivity goes both ways, you can't really use the "those are just subjective standards" argument to convince someone that your subjective standard is right.
-
I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder. If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child. If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder. So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder? Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically. But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.
Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children. Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.
Is beating a child as bad as murder?
-
Sorry, but what point are you trying to make there? Subjectivity goes both ways, you can't really use the "those are just subjective standards" argument to convince someone that your subjective standard is right.
My point is that you can't base everything off of subjective standards. With me, if I see no harm, there's no foul. Sure I don't nesassarily agree with everything people are attracted to, but I don't give a shit what they think about when they jack off. And I certainly don't call them sick for it. Why you care so much makes no sense to me.
-
Why you care so much makes no sense to me.
I never said I did, I was just taking issue to the argument you were making. The main thing I disagree with you is the "it's not a sickness, it's a sexuality" thing. If we're talking about pre-pubescent kids here then there is no way in hell that should be considered a valid sexuality, if it's 15+ or so then fine.
As for the issue of making a big deal about what other people think or feel but don't act on, that's more of a touchy subject. Yeah it's their thoughts and many people think of crazy shit all the time without doing it, I get it. But If you knew someone were a pedophile but never acted out on it on another person, would you be ok with leaving your kid with them for an extended period of time? I honestly wouldn't, so I can't really take issue with other people getting worked up over it. The degree to which people react to it, however, I don'g agree with.
Personally, I there should happy medium between the life ruining disdain our society has right now for someone who's so much as suspected of maybe being the type of person who'd jerk one off to an animated kid, and the whole "there's nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to children not yet fit (physically and mentally, although the second is more difficult to judge) for sex, perfectly normal in fact" deal you seem to be arguing for.
As for the animated porn thing, I'm pretty sure I've made my stance on that clear enough.
-
I'm just curious, are you guys likening pedos to violent murderers? Or say...schizophrenics or something?
Cause on one hand you're saying it's a mental disorder, and on the other you're saying they should all go to jail for the rest of their lives. It doesn't seem to make much sense that people should go to jail for having thoughts they can't control.
-
If it was directed at the whole thread, then my stance on it is that it's a disorder that should be treated. As for jail or anything like that, there's no need until someone actually does something (or tries) to a kid. Which is partially why I'm fine with animated kid porn. If someone needs an outlet that won't hurt anyone then all the power to them
-
If it was directed at the whole thread, then my stance on it is that it's a disorder that should be treated. As for jail or anything like that, there's no need until someone actually does something (or tries) to a kid. Which is partially why I'm fine with animated kid porn. If someone needs an outlet that won't hurt anyone then all the power to them
Ok, so you don't believe they should go to jail unless they actually harm a child. Good man. It was more aimed at the "BURN THEM ALL!!!" mentallity people.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
Maybe you should do some research?
-
I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder. If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child. If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder. So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder? Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically. But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.
Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children. Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.
Is beating a child as bad as murder?
I'd say its right up there with murder yep.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
Maybe you should do some research?
Why?
-
I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder. If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child. If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder. So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder? Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically. But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.
Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children. Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.
Is beating a child as bad as murder?
I'd say its right up there with murder yep.
I think you over value children.
-
I liken pedophilia to having compulsive thoughts of murder. If you are a pedophile you are having compulsive thoughts of having sex with a child. If you are thinking compulsive thoughts about murder, you have a mental disorder. So why isn't pedophilia a mental disorder? Because if the pedophile isn't bothered by his way of thinking, it's not a disorder technically. But if he's not bothered by it, that's even more messed up.
Thinking about murder and getting off to it is just as bad as thinking and getting off on children. Seriously, they are both sick things to think about and want.
Is beating a child as bad as murder?
I'd say its right up there with murder yep.
I think you over value children.
Nope.
-
There is no logic behind equating child abuse or taking pictures of children naked, or jerking off to pictures of children naked to murder.
There's no logic behind it at all, there's just the irrational hatred behind it. Justice should never be based on emotion. As soon as it is, it falls apart.
-
Why do you hate children, Adami?
-
Why do you hate children, Adami?
Because I was raped by an infant.
-
Why do you hate children, Adami?
Because I was raped by an infant.
I propose a ban on pornographic images and videos featuring or depicting males in their mid twenties so this tragedy might never again occur.
-
Why do you hate children, Adami?
Because I was raped by an infant.
I propose a ban on pornographic images and videos featuring or depicting males in their mid twenties so this tragedy might never again occur.
Yes, people who take pictures of men in their mid twenties are no better than murderers.
-
Why do you hate children, Adami?
Because I was raped by an infant.
I propose a ban on pornographic images and videos featuring or depicting males in their mid twenties so this tragedy might never again occur.
Yes, people who take pictures of men in their mid twenties are no better than murderers.
Are we going to find out there is a picture of you floating around the interwebs Adami? Mabye you should strike first and post it. :laugh:
-
NO!
People who look at pictures of me are just as bad as murderers and should all be put in jail for the rest of their lives!
-
NO!
People who look at pictures of me are just as bad as murderers and should all be put in jail for the rest of their lives!
So where does a baby go to jail when taking an adults pic.
-
NO!
People who look at pictures of me are just as bad as murderers and should all be put in jail for the rest of their lives!
So where does a baby go to jail when taking an adults pic.
Icys house I'd assume.
-
There is no logic behind equating child abuse or taking pictures of children naked, or jerking off to pictures of children naked to murder.
There's no logic behind it at all, there's just the irrational hatred behind it. Justice should never be based on emotion. As soon as it is, it falls apart.
Irrational hatred of child abuse? Are you out of your skull? The hatred of child abuse is FAR from irrational. Where do you come from? Abusing a child takes the child's innocence. You can't just go around beating kids. And I'm not talking about a spanking. I'm talking about beating up a child. Not a little slap on the bum.
-
Oh I get it. Because I don't equate child abuse to murder, I am obviously a proponent of it.
Jesus dude, I know hitting a kid is wrong, raping a kid is wrong, having sex with someone under say 13 is wrong. But I don't equate it to murder.
It's pretty simple.
-
Oh I get it. Because I don't equate child abuse to murder, I am obviously a proponent of it.
Jesus dude, I know hitting a kid is wrong, raping a kid is wrong, having sex with someone under say 13 is wrong. But I don't equate it to murder.
It's pretty simple.
I never said it was equal. I said it was on the same tier. Children can't protect themselves. If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more. The laws are there to protect people after all.
Regardless, my offense still stands to you saying there is an irrational hatred for child abuse.
-
You can hate child abuse, and then you can have an irrational hatred of child abuse.
I have a hatred of child abuse, it seems you have an irrational hatred of child abuse.
-
If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more. The laws are there to protect people after all.
What do these sentences even mean?
-
You can hate child abuse, and then you can have an irrational hatred of child abuse.
I have a hatred of child abuse, it seems you have an irrational hatred of child abuse.
How the hell do you come to that conclusion. Almost everything you say is arbitrary. I just outlined why laws should be severe with child abuse, because children need protection from somewhere. NOT IRRATIONAL. There is absolutely logic behind that way of thinking. Just because you disagree does not give you any good argument against a rational idea.
-
If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more. The laws are there to protect people after all.
What do these sentences even mean?
Well, read it. Children need protection. Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them. So then who is left to protect them? If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse. Thus offering more protection to children. This protection coming from the law. Is that better? I thought I had it clear in the other statement.
-
If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more. The laws are there to protect people after all.
What do these sentences even mean?
Well, read it. Children need protection. Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them. So then who is left to protect them? If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse. Thus offering more protection to children. This protection coming from the law. Is that better? I thought I had it clear in the other statement.
What does the amount of people around a person to protect them have to do with how severe a punishment should be dealt out for abusing them? Should some random guy beating up a kid with loving, caring parents have less of a penalty than beating up an orphan? Should punching the president of the US in the face, with all of his body guards, be less punishable than punching some homeless guy in the face?
-
If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more. The laws are there to protect people after all.
What do these sentences even mean?
Well, read it. Children need protection. Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them. So then who is left to protect them? If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse. Thus offering more protection to children. This protection coming from the law. Is that better? I thought I had it clear in the other statement.
What does the amount of people around a person to protect them have to do with how severe a punishment should be dealt out for abusing them? Should some random guy beating up a kid with loving, caring parents have less of a penalty than beating up an orphan? Should punching the president of the US in the face, with all of his body guards, be less punishable than punching some homeless guy in the face?
It has nothing to do with amount of people. Children cannot defend themselves right? Ok. So when a parent decides to beat their children, there is no one there to protect that child. So the only way to protect kids against that is to have severe laws against it to deter it. Same thing goes with murder. Severe laws will deter murder from happening more frequently (at least that is the idea behind it). Do you see what I'm saying now? Child abuse is child abuse, no matter who commits it. I'm just saying severe laws are warranted in order to protect children better.
-
If the parents can't protect the child (because they are beating them) the severity of the laws against child abuse should be greater to attempt to deter child abuse more. The laws are there to protect people after all.
What do these sentences even mean?
Well, read it. Children need protection. Parents can't protect children if they are the ones beating them. So then who is left to protect them? If the laws are severe for child abuse it would deter child abuse. Thus offering more protection to children. This protection coming from the law. Is that better? I thought I had it clear in the other statement.
What does the amount of people around a person to protect them have to do with how severe a punishment should be dealt out for abusing them? Should some random guy beating up a kid with loving, caring parents have less of a penalty than beating up an orphan? Should punching the president of the US in the face, with all of his body guards, be less punishable than punching some homeless guy in the face?
It has nothing to do with amount of people. Children cannot defend themselves right? Ok. So when a parent decides to beat their children, there is no one there to protect that child. So the only way to protect kids against that is to have severe laws against it to deter it. Same thing goes with murder. Severe laws will deter murder from happening more frequently (at least that is the idea behind it). Do you see what I'm saying now? Child abuse is child abuse, no matter who commits it. I'm just saying severe laws are warranted in order to protect children better.
These two comments are contradictory, though. On one hand you're saying that when a parent beats their kid there's no one to protect the kid so the punishment has to be severe enough to deter it. But then what about if it's not a parent beating the kid. There's someone to "protect" the kid, should this then have a less severe punishment? Or what about when it's one parent abusing a kid but not the other? Or if we've got an extended family living in the same house and a random relative is the abuser but not anyone else?
Obviously it doesn't make any sense to have different punishments in these cases, but that's what part of your argument suggests when you say "a kid with abusive parents has no one to protect them, so we need severe punishments to prevent this."
Which then goes back to the whole "beating a child is as bad as murder" thing. Why? Is murdering a child worse than murdering an adult?
-
I think everybody is taking things to literal here. There has to be laws to defer things like stealing, murder, abuse. That's what 7 stringed is saying. I think erha, that you are saying how do you gauge the punishment. Am I right or am I missing both your points.
-
Yes. Going by his comment that beating a child is "right up there with murder," I'm wondering what reasons he would have for why they should be on near the same level punishment wise. I'm also curious, since beating a child is close to murder, if murdering a child is then worse than murdering an adult. If not, then that suggests that murdering a child is only marginally (at the most) worse than beating them.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
Maybe you should do some research?
Why?
Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find. Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it. I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.
-
I think we as a society want to protect children and anything remotely close to child abuse sends off major alarms. In any conversation there is too many variables for all to agree.
I'll use you and I as an example erha. We both agree that pedophila is a very bad thing. Your ok with a cartoon version of child porn because you think it will deture a person from comitting the crime. I on the other hand think that it will lead to them wanting to take the next step.
I think we are different in that because of where we are in age and in my case, an incident that has forever changed my life. This is a hard topic to debate because of the child variable.
-
I understand, but when it comes to laws it's something that needs to be discussed objectively. Reasons need to go beyond "because it feels right" and claims like "animated child porn does/doesn't make someone more likely to sexually abuse a child" need to be backed up.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
Maybe you should do some research?
Why?
Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find. Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it. I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.
icy, I think to most of us older guys and gals, we want to protect children. It's our nature. I think when you get older and have kids or someone in your family has kids, your values will change. Not on everything because it's your age now that will mold you into becoming a man.
From my life, I have seen my views change as I have gotten older and most old fogies will tell you the same. Mabye we can have another conversation in about 10 to 15 years and see if there is different stances on this,on both sides. It would be interesting to see.
-
I understand, but when it comes to laws it's something that needs to be discussed objectively. Reasons need to go beyond "because it feels right" and claims like "animated child porn does/doesn't make someone more likely to sexually abuse a child" need to be backed up.
In all honesty, I don't know is animated child porn or the real thing is a lesser or no offense at all. I just think in this one subject it's better to err on the side of caution when relating to children. That being said. I'd rather see a person get help before the authorities step in. But if they don't want help, that's a different story to me.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
Maybe you should do some research?
Why?
Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find. Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it. I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.
icy, I think to most of us older guys and gals, we want to protect children. It's our nature. I think when you get older and have kids or someone in your family has kids, your values will change. Not on everything because it's your age now that will mold you into becoming a man.
From my life, I have seen my views change as I have gotten older and most old fogies will tell you the same. Mabye we can have another conversation in about 10 to 15 years and see if there is different stances on this,on both sides. It would be interesting to see.
But it's obvious that I agree with a lot of older members like El Barto and (i think) Adami. I don't agree with children (meaning under 13 or so) getting banged. But I have a hard tome believing that drawings will lead someone on to something else, and because of that, I don't think they should be illegal.
Take this analogy for example. I think it's an OK one, although about a completely different subject.
The government has been telling people lies for the past 50 or so years about marijuana. They bend statistics. They say "Most people who used drugs such as cocaine and heroine started with marijuana. Therefor marijuana is a gateway drug and will turn you on to heavier drugs.
What they didn't tell you is that while most heavy drug users started with marijuana, most marijuana users DID NOT move on to heavier drugs. The statistic does not work both ways, and i suspect the same mentality is propagated about simulated child porn.
Another example:
You're a thief. You live in a world where no matter what you steal you are getting the same punishment. In front of you lies a candy bar and a golden bar. You could steal either one easily. If you get caught, youw ill get the same punishment for either. Which are you going to take? The golden bar, because it's the real thing. Something that could benefit you more than a candy bar.
In front of a pedophile looking for something to get his rocks off to is a drawing and a real photo. Both crimes are the same. Both will get him around 5 years and on the RSO list for life. Which will he take?
It is on these grounds that I don't believe drawn porn hurts anyone, but rather the laws surrounding it harm children.
-
I don't know enough about drawing to say either way, and if that's all the pedophile has then mabye I'm ok with that.
Pot is a whole other story. I haven't touched it since 1994 but I personally don't have a problem with people smoking it. Around children is another story though.
Imagine if you lived in a country where the cut off your hand for stealing!! Where we live now doesn't look so bad and seem to harsh now.
-
I don't know enough about drawing to say either way, and if that's all the pedophile has then mabye I'm ok with that.
Pot is a whole other story. I haven't touched it since 1994 but I personally don't have a problem with people smoking it. Around children is another story though.
Imagine if you lived in a country where the cut off your hand for stealing!! Where we live now doesn't look so bad and seem to harsh now.
But you get the analogies?
-
I don't know enough about drawing to say either way, and if that's all the pedophile has then mabye I'm ok with that.
Pot is a whole other story. I haven't touched it since 1994 but I personally don't have a problem with people smoking it. Around children is another story though.
Imagine if you lived in a country where the cut off your hand for stealing!! Where we live now doesn't look so bad and seem to harsh now.
But you get the analogies?
Yes. I get you, but I think we need to look at crimes separatly.
Yes. I get you, but I think we need to look at crimes separatly.
If someone steals $200 dollars from you, you can recoup that money but If a pedophile has sex with a child that is uncalable to have and understand. You can never get that back.
I just think we both can give examples. I'd rather focus on the child's saftey. An adult can protect ones self.
-
I don't know enough about drawing to say either way, and if that's all the pedophile has then mabye I'm ok with that.
Pot is a whole other story. I haven't touched it since 1994 but I personally don't have a problem with people smoking it. Around children is another story though.
Imagine if you lived in a country where the cut off your hand for stealing!! Where we live now doesn't look so bad and seem to harsh now.
But you get the analogies?
Yes. I get you, but I think we need to look at crimes separatly.
Yes. I get you, but I think we need to look at crimes separatly.
If someone steals $200 dollars from you, you can recoup that money but If a pedophile has sex with a child that is uncalable to have and understand. You can never get that back.
I just think we both can give examples. I'd rather focus on the child's saftey. An adult can protect ones self.
I don't think we disagree that you shouldn't have sex with a child.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
Maybe you should do some research?
Why?
Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find. Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it. I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.
I wasn't taking your posts that way at all. Until you said that.
But you saying that doesn't change what is, to me, the strangest part of all this, which is your apparent fascination with pedophilia while still practically a child yourself. The fact that you have done TONS of research on this (and I don't doubt that you have) is fascinating to me. In fact, your seeming obsession with such a subject is more interesting to me than the subject itself.
But like I said, I've stated my opinions, and you've stated yours, and we aren't getting anywhere else with this.
-
I think they should most definitely be treated.
By treated, do you mean "Cured" or "Helped to cope with problems resulting from being a pedophile"?
Cured if possible. But I'm not sure that it is possible, so whatever the next best treatment is.
Maybe you should do some research?
Why?
Because if you did some then it would be no question that pedophilia can't be "Cured"
I have done TONS of research on the subject...even if that research is a bit hard to find. Pedophilia is the most interesting subject to me, and yes, I do know A LOT about it. I'm not talking out of my ass...which is kind of how you seem to be taking my posts.
I wasn't taking your posts that way at all. Until you said that.
But you saying that doesn't change what is, to me, the strangest part of all this, which is your apparent fascination with pedophilia while still practically a child yourself. The fact that you have done TONS of research on this (and I don't doubt that you have) is fascinating to me. In fact, your seeming obsession with such a subject is more interesting to me than the subject itself.
But like I said, I've stated my opinions, and you've stated yours, and we aren't getting anywhere else with this.
I've always been interested in human sexuality. There's a lot we know about gay people. Do we know anything about pedophiles? No. We've not made a dent in all that could be known. As a future psychologist I find any mystery of the brain's function to be fascinating. Throughout everything I've looked at, pedophilia is definitely the one that has stuck the most with me. The taboo of it only makes me want to study it more. I won't shy away from a subject just because it's a hush-hush topic.
-
I'm going to go ahead and doubt that that's why you're so interested.
-
I'm going to go ahead and doubt that that's why you're so interested.
and what would you like to assume
-
I assume a personal interest.
-
I assume a personal interest.
As do I.
But whatever.
-
Even if I did, I certainly wouldn't say it on here. :P
EDIT: This is exactly why no progress can be made. Because anyone who tries automatically gets labeled... Are all people lobbying for gay rights gay?
-
Even if I did, I certainly wouldn't say it on here. :P
MURDERER!
-
see edit in case you missed :p
-
see edit in case you missed :p
So you're a gay rights murderer? I don't get it.
-
see edit in case you missed :p
So you're a gay rights murderer? I don't get it.
yep ;)
-
Fine.
MURDERER!
-
Fine.
MURDERER!
lol. Can we get back to the topic at hand?
-
Why? You have extremists on both sides, you and 7string, and then some moderates. No one is changing their arguments, or their minds. People are just repeating the same things over and over. You view pedophelia as a sexual preference, most others view it as a disease. 7 string views it as being the most horrible life form imaginable. I don't see where else this can go?
-
true, but I like arguing.
-
Are all people lobbying for gay rights gay?
Of course not. But this goes to your problem with analogies. No one is accusing you of being a pedophile. After all, legally, it's impossible.
-
Guys, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 15 year-old Icy wanting to sleep with the perceived hot, 13 year-old piece of ass in the grade under him, or that MILF teacher he's likely got in one of his classes, even though she's probably twice his age. It's normal, and completely acceptable for kids to feel that way. I can't wrap my head under why anyone would think kids being attracted with each other is weird. Have any of you ever been to a grade-school dance? I doubt Icy is a pedophile, or that he'll still like people his own age a decade from now, but there's absolutely NO reason why he should have to rationalize and justify his attraction to other people his age like you all are poaching him to do. If there's anything to be ashamed of here, it's that the adults have drug this on for so long and have refused to let matters rest and let Icy go back to the kids table.
My point: Can we keep n00bs out of PR? (Sorry Icy ;))
-
Guys, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 15 year-old Icy wanting to sleep with the perceived hot, 13 year-old piece of ass in the grade under him, or that MILF teacher he's likely got in one of his classes, even though she's probably twice his age. It's normal, and completely acceptable for kids to feel that way. I can't wrap my head under why anyone would think kids being attracted with each other is weird. Have any of you ever been to a grade-school dance? I doubt Icy is a pedophile, or that he'll still like people his own age a decade from now, but there's absolutely NO reason why he should have to rationalize and justify his attraction to other people his age like you all are poaching him to do. If there's anything to be ashamed of here, it's that the adults have drug this on for so long and have refused to let matters rest and let Icy go back to the kids table.
My point: Can we keep n00bs out of PR? (Sorry Icy ;))
That's not our point and your way off base with this one PC. Mabye you should read the whole thread.
-
Guys, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 15 year-old Icy wanting to sleep with the perceived hot, 13 year-old piece of ass in the grade under him, or that MILF teacher he's likely got in one of his classes, even though she's probably twice his age. It's normal, and completely acceptable for kids to feel that way. I can't wrap my head under why anyone would think kids being attracted with each other is weird. Have any of you ever been to a grade-school dance? I doubt Icy is a pedophile, or that he'll still like people his own age a decade from now, but there's absolutely NO reason why he should have to rationalize and justify his attraction to other people his age like you all are poaching him to do. If there's anything to be ashamed of here, it's that the adults have drug this on for so long and have refused to let matters rest and let Icy go back to the kids table.
My point: Can we keep n00bs out of PR? (Sorry Icy ;))
Thanks for defending me, but really, you have it all wrong.
Are all people lobbying for gay rights gay?
Of course not. But this goes to your problem with analogies. No one is accusing you of being a pedophile. After all, legally, it's impossible.
Sorry, then I interpreted "personal interest" wrong.
-
Just a little sample on why I don't trust pedophile. This is from 3 of my friends on Facebook.
ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!! Do NOT join the group currently on Facebook with the title "Becoming a Father or Mother was the greatest gift of my life" It is a group of PEDOPHILES trying to access your photos. This was on FoxNews at 5. Please copy and post!!! Let's keep our children safe.
All they want is childrens pictures. >:(
-
Not really, but people will believe anything the second you mention pedophiles are behind it: https://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/greatestgift.asp
-
Not really, but people will believe anything the second you mention pedophiles are behind it: https://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/greatestgift.asp
Then I will retract what I said on this point. Thanks Sigz.
-
Not really, but people will believe anything the second you mention pedophiles are behind it: https://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/greatestgift.asp
That's so sad.
-
As soon as pedophilia is mentioned alarms go off. For example, there was an organization (I think called Santa's little helpers, but I may be confused) based in North Pole, Alaska. They took children's letters adressed to Santa and wrote back to them. When it was discovered a pedophile worked there, the whole organization shut itself down.
I wonder how many children they saved by doing that.... :\
-
The North Pole program was stymied by a tighter process put in place nationwide by the Postal Service after a postal worker in Maryland recognized a volunteer with the agency's Operation Santa program as a registered sex offender. The worker intervened before the individual could answer a child's letter, but the agency viewed the scare as a reason to tighten security.
The Postal Service had already restricted its policies in such programs in 2006, including requiring volunteers to show identification. But the Maryland episode prompted more changes, such as barring volunteers from having access to children's last names and addresses. The Postal Service instead redacts that information from each letter and replaces the addresses with codes that match computerized addresses known only to the post office.
It's up to local managers to determine whether to go through the time-consuming effort, but the new restrictions must be applied if letter programs are continued. The restrictions don't affect privately run letter efforts.
Story continues below
The Postal Service decided this month to end the North Pole letter program, saying dealing with the tighter restrictions isn't feasible in Alaska. The agency considers the North Pole effort part of its giant Operation Santa program, although locals like to think of their program as unique.
"WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" For fuck's sake. More pointless paranoia that won't actually do any good, but will make stupid-ass parents feel better (even though they'll still take their kid to wiggle around on some stranger's lap at the mall because he's wearing a Santa costume).
-
The North Pole program was stymied by a tighter process put in place nationwide by the Postal Service after a postal worker in Maryland recognized a volunteer with the agency's Operation Santa program as a registered sex offender. The worker intervened before the individual could answer a child's letter, but the agency viewed the scare as a reason to tighten security.
The Postal Service had already restricted its policies in such programs in 2006, including requiring volunteers to show identification. But the Maryland episode prompted more changes, such as barring volunteers from having access to children's last names and addresses. The Postal Service instead redacts that information from each letter and replaces the addresses with codes that match computerized addresses known only to the post office.
It's up to local managers to determine whether to go through the time-consuming effort, but the new restrictions must be applied if letter programs are continued. The restrictions don't affect privately run letter efforts.
Story continues below
The Postal Service decided this month to end the North Pole letter program, saying dealing with the tighter restrictions isn't feasible in Alaska. The agency considers the North Pole effort part of its giant Operation Santa program, although locals like to think of their program as unique.
"WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" For fuck's sake. More pointless paranoia that won't actually do any good, but will make stupid-ass parents feel better (even though they'll still take their kid to wiggle around on some stranger's lap at the mall because he's wearing a Santa costume).
I think that's next to go.
-
Look, here is what I think: your position that pedophilia is a genuine sexuality that should be respected is wrong. And here is why I say that. There is more to a real sexuality than who you want to diddle. Heterosexuals want to be in relationships with other heterosexuals, not just have sex with them. Homosexuals want to be in relationships with other homosexuals, not just have sex with them (hence the push to legalize gay marriage). Pedophilia is not like that. There is no real relationship to be had between a pedophile and the object of his passion (much like necrophilia, or treeophilia, or whatever else there is out there). There is no give and take - there is only take, and that taking involves more than just physicality, but also a sense of authority and borders and all kinds of other things. In a way, seeking to equate pedophilia with an actual sexuality is a slap in the face to all the strides that have been made in the area of gay rights over the last 25 years. And please, I don't want to hear anymore about thoughts, or your so-called majority of pedophiles that haven't actually touched a child. They haven't touched one yet, or they haven't been caught. If they have child porn, then a child was violated in the making of that porn, so their possession is a party to it. I have never heard of a case of a pedophile only being caught with child porn art or cartoons. But even if they were, that is still an indication of an unnatural sexual leaning, like I mentioned above.
Sorry Hef, but his is just wrong. I can assure you that as a heterosexual, any interest in a relationship that I might desire is completely unrelated to my interest in an occasional bit of tail. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who can separate the two, either. There might be more to a sexuality than who you want to diddle, but it might also be just that simple.
-
I'd also like to point out that pedophiles don't necessarily ONLY like children. There can be many people who enjoy both. They enter into relationships with adults, but sometimes think about kids, that doesn't mean they're going to rape them.
Plus, the majority of child molestation, isn't it usually by a relative? How often do people rape, or something a kid they aren't related to? Keeping that in mind, why are pedos so punished for the possibility of being with children they don't know, when it's rarely the case?
-
Plus, the majority of child molestation, isn't it usually by a relative? How often do people rape, or something a kid they aren't related to? Keeping that in mind, why are pedos so punished for the possibility of being with children they don't know, when it's rarely the case?
Because it's easier to go on a witch hunt for the faceless perv behind a computer screen rather than confront Uncle Ted.
-
Plus, the majority of child molestation, isn't it usually by a relative? How often do people rape, or something a kid they aren't related to? Keeping that in mind, why are pedos so punished for the possibility of being with children they don't know, when it's rarely the case?
Because it's easier to go on a witch hunt for the faceless perv behind a computer screen rather than confront Uncle Ted.
But Uncle Ted is a murderer!
-
Plus, the majority of child molestation, isn't it usually by a relative? How often do people rape, or something a kid they aren't related to? Keeping that in mind, why are pedos so punished for the possibility of being with children they don't know, when it's rarely the case?
Because it's easier to go on a witch hunt for the faceless perv behind a computer screen rather than confront Uncle Ted.
Bingo
-
Look, here is what I think: your position that pedophilia is a genuine sexuality that should be respected is wrong. And here is why I say that. There is more to a real sexuality than who you want to diddle. Heterosexuals want to be in relationships with other heterosexuals, not just have sex with them. Homosexuals want to be in relationships with other homosexuals, not just have sex with them (hence the push to legalize gay marriage). Pedophilia is not like that. There is no real relationship to be had between a pedophile and the object of his passion (much like necrophilia, or treeophilia, or whatever else there is out there). There is no give and take - there is only take, and that taking involves more than just physicality, but also a sense of authority and borders and all kinds of other things. In a way, seeking to equate pedophilia with an actual sexuality is a slap in the face to all the strides that have been made in the area of gay rights over the last 25 years. And please, I don't want to hear anymore about thoughts, or your so-called majority of pedophiles that haven't actually touched a child. They haven't touched one yet, or they haven't been caught. If they have child porn, then a child was violated in the making of that porn, so their possession is a party to it. I have never heard of a case of a pedophile only being caught with child porn art or cartoons. But even if they were, that is still an indication of an unnatural sexual leaning, like I mentioned above.
Sorry Hef, but his is just wrong. I can assure you that as a heterosexual, any interest in a relationship that I might desire is completely unrelated to my interest in an occasional bit of tail. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who can separate the two, either. There might be more to a sexuality than who you want to diddle, but it might also be just that simple.
Well, yet again it comes down to definitions ("sexuality", in this case). But either way, hef's distinction between pedophilia as compared to heterosexuality and homosexuality is a valid one that is being ignored, and I tend to agree with him. It just depends on what "sexuality" is purported to encompass. If it were simply a physical preference for children that existed independently of everything else, then that would be one thing. But as it stands, the notion that it is a "legitimate sexuality" (to use icy's words) in the vein of heteros and homos is idiotic.
These recent threads about pedophilia have been strange. Of course I agree with Barto and his ilk that the morons who run around crying "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" and think they're doing society any good should jump off a cliff. It's one of those topics that is unfairly assessed because of huge emotional investments that ruin rational discussion. But taking the extreme other end of the spectrum is just as dumb, and I feel like that's the way icy and quite a few other posters are leaning, possibly just to backlash against the opposition.
-J
-
I'd also like to point out that pedophiles don't necessarily ONLY like children. There can be many people who enjoy both. They enter into relationships with adults, but sometimes think about kids, that doesn't mean they're going to rape them.
Plus, the majority of child molestation, isn't it usually by a relative? How often do people rape, or something a kid they aren't related to? Keeping that in mind, why are pedos so punished for the possibility of being with children they don't know, when it's rarely the case?
Actually, the majority of child molestation isn't even done by pedophiles at all. It's done in majorly by heterosexual males who are not attracted to children, but rather want to take advantage of someone who they think can't fight back.
-
Look, here is what I think: your position that pedophilia is a genuine sexuality that should be respected is wrong. And here is why I say that. There is more to a real sexuality than who you want to diddle. Heterosexuals want to be in relationships with other heterosexuals, not just have sex with them. Homosexuals want to be in relationships with other homosexuals, not just have sex with them (hence the push to legalize gay marriage). Pedophilia is not like that. There is no real relationship to be had between a pedophile and the object of his passion (much like necrophilia, or treeophilia, or whatever else there is out there). There is no give and take - there is only take, and that taking involves more than just physicality, but also a sense of authority and borders and all kinds of other things. In a way, seeking to equate pedophilia with an actual sexuality is a slap in the face to all the strides that have been made in the area of gay rights over the last 25 years. And please, I don't want to hear anymore about thoughts, or your so-called majority of pedophiles that haven't actually touched a child. They haven't touched one yet, or they haven't been caught. If they have child porn, then a child was violated in the making of that porn, so their possession is a party to it. I have never heard of a case of a pedophile only being caught with child porn art or cartoons. But even if they were, that is still an indication of an unnatural sexual leaning, like I mentioned above.
Sorry Hef, but his is just wrong. I can assure you that as a heterosexual, any interest in a relationship that I might desire is completely unrelated to my interest in an occasional bit of tail. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who can separate the two, either. There might be more to a sexuality than who you want to diddle, but it might also be just that simple.
Well, yet again it comes down to definitions ("sexuality", in this case). But either way, hef's distinction between pedophilia as compared to heterosexuality and homosexuality is a valid one that is being ignored, and I tend to agree with him. It just depends on what "sexuality" is purported to encompass. If it were simply a physical preference for children that existed independently of everything else, then that would be one thing. But as it stands, the notion that it is a "legitimate sexuality" (to use icy's words) in the vein of heteros and homos is idiotic.
-J
Care to elaborate on that, Doc? " But either way, hef's distinction between pedophilia as compared to heterosexuality and homosexuality is a valid one that is being ignored, and I tend to agree with him. It just depends on what "sexuality" is purported to encompass." You say that either way his distinction is valid, but he's only asserting that it's based on more than an attraction. I'm living proof that there are people who are of a distinct sexuality, based entirely on who they'd like to fuck.
-
Plus the fact that not every pedophile (in fact post) pedophiles aren't all about the sex anyways. Most DO want an emotional relationship, even if that's not possible. They still desire one.
Yes, I have talked to pedophiles and have proof of this.
-
Look, here is what I think: your position that pedophilia is a genuine sexuality that should be respected is wrong. And here is why I say that. There is more to a real sexuality than who you want to diddle. Heterosexuals want to be in relationships with other heterosexuals, not just have sex with them. Homosexuals want to be in relationships with other homosexuals, not just have sex with them (hence the push to legalize gay marriage). Pedophilia is not like that. There is no real relationship to be had between a pedophile and the object of his passion (much like necrophilia, or treeophilia, or whatever else there is out there). There is no give and take - there is only take, and that taking involves more than just physicality, but also a sense of authority and borders and all kinds of other things. In a way, seeking to equate pedophilia with an actual sexuality is a slap in the face to all the strides that have been made in the area of gay rights over the last 25 years. And please, I don't want to hear anymore about thoughts, or your so-called majority of pedophiles that haven't actually touched a child. They haven't touched one yet, or they haven't been caught. If they have child porn, then a child was violated in the making of that porn, so their possession is a party to it. I have never heard of a case of a pedophile only being caught with child porn art or cartoons. But even if they were, that is still an indication of an unnatural sexual leaning, like I mentioned above.
Sorry Hef, but his is just wrong. I can assure you that as a heterosexual, any interest in a relationship that I might desire is completely unrelated to my interest in an occasional bit of tail. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who can separate the two, either. There might be more to a sexuality than who you want to diddle, but it might also be just that simple.
Well, yet again it comes down to definitions ("sexuality", in this case). But either way, hef's distinction between pedophilia as compared to heterosexuality and homosexuality is a valid one that is being ignored, and I tend to agree with him. It just depends on what "sexuality" is purported to encompass. If it were simply a physical preference for children that existed independently of everything else, then that would be one thing. But as it stands, the notion that it is a "legitimate sexuality" (to use icy's words) in the vein of heteros and homos is idiotic.
-J
Care to elaborate on that, Doc? " But either way, hef's distinction between pedophilia as compared to heterosexuality and homosexuality is a valid one that is being ignored, and I tend to agree with him. It just depends on what "sexuality" is purported to encompass." You say that either way his distinction is valid, but he's only asserting that it's based on more than an attraction. I'm living proof that there are people who are of a distinct sexuality, based entirely on who they'd like to fuck.
Yeah I was unclear. The distinction is in the object of attraction (a kid in the case of pedophilia and an adult in the other cases). Whether or not that makes it inherently deplorable is irrelevant, but it is still a fundamental difference regardless that cannot be ignored.
At any rate, I'm highly skeptical that ANYONE'S sexuality is so simplistic. That is, you say yours is based entirely on who you'd like to fuck, but what does that entail? Can you say for certain that it's pure physical attraction, and that there aren't other factors at play even subconsciously? Our sexuality is so intertwined with other aspects of our psyches that I can't buy into this "it's just a physical attraction to kids" if only because of its flippancy.
One one hand, I'm reading arguments that pedophilia is no different from heterosexuality or homosexuality. Then I read that pedophiles only have physical attractions that are harmless. Then I read that they also want to have "relationships" with the objects of their attraction. I don't know what is being argued, just a lot of unverifiable psycho-babble. And that's what topics like this boil down to anyway, which is why I normally leave them alone.
-J
-
At any rate, I'm highly skeptical that ANYONE'S sexuality is so simplistic. That is, you say yours is based entirely on who you'd like to fuck, but what does that entail? Can you say for certain that it's pure physical attraction, and that there aren't other factors at play even subconsciously? Our sexuality is so intertwined with other aspects of our psyches that I can't buy into this "it's just a physical attraction to kids" if only because of its flippancy.
-J
Interesting point. Personally, I think in my case that it is that simple, but I've come to recognize that I'm not exactly a typical human being.
One one hand, I'm reading arguments that pedophilia is no different from heterosexuality or homosexuality. Then I read that pedophiles only have physical attractions that are harmless. Then I read that they also want to have "relationships" with the objects of their attraction. I don't know what is being argued, just a lot of unverifiable psycho-babble. And that's what topics like this boil down to anyway, which is why I normally leave them alone.
-J
And it's also why I enjoy debating such things. It's an issue where there are no constants and nothing is really verifiable since it mostly occurs in the psyche of an individual. It's many different overlapping gray areas. Yet, people have such strong opinions that their perspective is correct and clearly defined and that anybody outside of their norm should be cast down to the sodomites of cell block D. Everyone here feels that anybody who fucks a child should spend many brutal years in prison, yet if you were to go back through this thread, you'd see every age from 12-18 mentioned as the end of the line for childhood. It's the strength of people's convictions in an area where they're so hard to pin down that fascinates me and always draws me back in.
-
One one hand, I'm reading arguments that pedophilia is no different from heterosexuality or homosexuality. Then I read that pedophiles only have physical attractions that are harmless. Then I read that they also want to have "relationships" with the objects of their attraction. I don't know what is being argued, just a lot of unverifiable psycho-babble. And that's what topics like this boil down to anyway, which is why I normally leave them alone.
-J
And it's also why I enjoy debating such things. It's an issue where there are no constants and nothing is really verifiable since it mostly occurs in the psyche of an individual. It's many different overlapping gray areas. Yet, people have such strong opinions that their perspective is correct and clearly defined and that anybody outside of their norm should be cast down to the sodomites of cell block D. Everyone here feels that anybody who fucks a child should spend many brutal years in prison, yet if you were to go back through this thread, you'd see every age from 12-18 mentioned as the end of the line for childhood. It's the strength of people's convictions in an area where they're so hard to pin down that fascinates me and always draws me back in.
Yeah, that is pretty intriguing. I do find these types of discussions interesting, it's just that they can never really go anywhere or reach any solid conclusions, for the reasons you outlined.
-J
-
On the subject of pedophilia and such, I found this interesting. It was a study done on Megan's law (sex offender registry)
This was on wiki, but when I find the actual study I will post it.
A December 2008 study of the law in New Jersey concluded that it had no effect on community tenure (i.e., time to first re-arrest), showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses, had no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense (still largely child molestation/incest), and had no effect on reducing the number of victims of sexual offenses. The authors felt that given the lack of demonstrated effect of the law on sexual offenses, its growing costs may not be justifiable
-
My understanding of the case is that the law named after Megan Kanka wouldn't have made any difference in her actual murder. Everybody in the neighborhood knew child molesters lived in the house and just didn't think much of it. I believe it was somewhat of a running joke that they'd trim the hedges in the summer so they could better watch the kiddos in a backyard pool. Rather than blame the grieving mother who let her 7 year old play unattended in the street, they crafted the first of many knee-jerk pieces of legislation. Never mind it's effectiveness if it saves face.
In the case of Megan's Law, I suspect it's probably in fact highly counterproductive.
To be clear, I'd be quite happy if they did come up with laws to prevent assholes like Timmendenquaws from doing what he did. Just make reasonable laws that are actually effective instead of feelgood bullshit that only serves to garner votes from parents scarred shitless by NBC.
-
My understanding of the case is that the law named after Megan Kanka wouldn't have made any difference in her actual murder. Everybody in the neighborhood knew child molesters lived in the house and just didn't think much of it. I believe it was somewhat of a running joke that they'd trim the hedges in the summer so they could better watch the kiddos in a backyard pool. Rather than blame the grieving mother who let her 7 year old play unattended in the street, they crafted the first of many knee-jerk pieces of legislation. Never mind it's effectiveness if it saves face.
In the case of Megan's Law, I suspect it's probably in fact highly counterproductive.
To be clear, I'd be quite happy if they did come up with laws to prevent assholes like Timmendenquaws from doing what he did. Just make reasonable laws that are actually effective instead of feelgood bullshit that only serves to garner votes from parents scarred shitless by NBC.
You are amazing.
-
To be clear, I'd be quite happy if they did come up with laws to prevent assholes like Timmendenquaws from doing what he did. Just make reasonable laws that are actually effective instead of feelgood bullshit that only serves to garner votes from parents scarred shitless by NBC.
I agree with this. Our differing opnions on other things in this thread aside, the current sexual predator/registering laws are, well, inefficient at best. At worst, they just suck. I suppose they do some good, but they definitely need to be revisited and improved.
-
To be clear, I'd be quite happy if they did come up with laws to prevent assholes like Timmendenquaws from doing what he did. Just make reasonable laws that are actually effective instead of feelgood bullshit that only serves to garner votes from parents scarred shitless by NBC.
I agree with this. Our differing opnions on other things in this thread aside, the current sexual predator/registering laws are, well, inefficient at best. At worst, they just suck. I suppose they do some good, but they definitely need to be revisited and improved.
I agree also.
-
Wow. It would appear that I'm really whipping some ass today.
-
Wow. It would appear that I'm really whipping some ass today.
indeed.
And I finally agree with Hef on SOMETHING.
-
Wow. It would appear that I'm really whipping some ass today.
indeed.
And I finally agree with Hef on SOMETHING.
With this comes wisdom, my son.
-
Wow. It would appear that I'm really whipping some ass today.
indeed.
And I finally agree with Hef on SOMETHING.
With this comes wisdom, my son.
Wax on, Wax off.
-
Hey, no waxing here.
-
Hey, no waxing here.
:lol Oops!