Life in prison for making porn?

[Nigerius Rex]

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. 

[King Postwhore]

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.

[El Barto]

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?

[icysk8r]

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.

[El Barto]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[ehra]

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."

[King Postwhore]

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.

[icysk8r]

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. 

[eric42434224]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[ehra]

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?

[King Postwhore]

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.

[ehra]

Then what was the "stop with the semantics, ehra." comment about?

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[El Barto]

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.

[Adami]

That's why logic should play a much higher role than emotion. Sorry kings.

[ehra]

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.

[icysk8r]

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.

[7StringedBeast]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[El Barto]

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. 

[Adami]

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.

[icysk8r]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

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.

[icysk8r]

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.

[El Barto]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[El Barto]

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.

[icysk8r]

I miss kingsypoo.

[icysk8r]

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