Life in prison for making porn?

[j]

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

[icysk8r]

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.

[El Barto]

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.

[icysk8r]

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.

[j]

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

[El Barto]

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.

[j]

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

[icysk8r]

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

[El Barto]

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. 

[icysk8r]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[El Barto]

Wow.  It would appear that I'm really whipping some ass today.

[icysk8r]

Wow.  It would appear that I'm really whipping some ass today.

indeed.
And I finally agree with Hef on SOMETHING.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

Hey, no waxing here.

[King Postwhore]

Hey, no waxing here.

  Oops!