You know what the bloody problem is? Coercion through authority.

Think about that and its many implications the next time you want to make your desires out to be utterly harmless and blameless.

It is not a crime to find children attractive, in the same way as it is not a crime to think it would be nice to kill someone. Actually acting on that attraction is abhorrent because it is totally and utterly selfish.

Do you not think it's easy to say "smile for the camera or I'll hit you again"? Do you not think such photos and videos are deliberately controlled to make it seem the children are enjoying themselves? Children are immensely impressionable. Adults have a responsibility not to abuse the innate power this gives them over children.

Child abuse, in a staggering number of cases (I have no exact citation) leads to excessive trauma and psychological problems for the victims in later life. Children do not always know what it good for them; a particularly precocious child might "lead on" a pedophile, but you can bet they won't fully understand what they are doing, or the implications for their later life. It is a completely unacceptable abuse of that child's innocence to take advantage of what in many cases is just curiosity. Where is the cutoff point, you ask. Why defend yourself with reference to ancient society? They also used to steal people from their villages and sell them as slaves and whip them when they disobeyed their white master. I guess that's fine too? And they also burnt people at the stake for witchcraft. Gee, it's old, so it must be ok.

I have heard people defend being attracted to children before, but I've never actually heard someone defend using children as a vehicle for your own sexual pleasure as being perfectly fine.

I was with you until

>but that is not all.

Yes, pedophilia is a real problem, and it should be dealt with in a reasonable way (allowing those affected to find counseling without fear of exposure, suppression of destructive desires and treatment, if necessary and possible) without simply bulldozing every last one of them into a pit. I agree with that. If pedophilia is a genetic issue, then pedophiles should not be stigmatized for their involuntary urges.

However.

It's up to pedophiles to not act on those urges. That includes viewing exploitative media of children. This sort of thing is a result and a record of abuse, and more, it's a motivator of further abuse. >>70255 puts the case better than I could as to why it is in fact abuse.

Sage because I don't really want to bump this thread.

I'm not a pedophile personally, but I do believe there's a bit too much hate attached to it. I very much against child rape, obviously, but the line where something becomes rape isn't always clear. Some people believe that having sex with a child has to be rape because the child is too stupid or weak to say no. Yet these same people often consider a 17 year old to be a child. Like 18 is the magic number at which people learn to only have sex when they really know that they actually want it (which I assure you is not the case and plenty of people will regret their decisions to have sex even when they're near 40).

So it's a rough line. I want to just say,"Of course it's fine to take naked pictures of children if they're okay with it." because without any outside information on that it obviously is, there's no harm there. On the other hand, how do we really define when it is that the child is "okay with it" if we operate under the assumption that the child is too weak to say no anyway?

>>70261

Law keeps to a specific number to avoid uncertainty and value judgements after the fact. While I am of the belief that edge cases (16-17) should be treated more leniently, the specific number is there for a pretty good reason. You can make arguments as to why it should be lowered by around 2 years, but any further and you would raise actual ire.

Speaking of which, the ire comes from the fact that almost every human being on the planet has a relative that is around 9-12ish in some form be it a sister, a daughter or son, a grandchild, etc. And the thought of SOME CREEPO (caps for emphasis) having sex with THAT CHILD THEY KNOW PERSONALLY enrages them. In fact, this permeates our current society to such a degree that it even turns up in prisons. It will forever color discourse on the matter until our society is replaced with something else.

And lastly/tangentially, the problem with coercion through authority is not the child being too stupid to say no, but the child being pressured, both overtly and implicitly, to say yes. The younger they are, the easier it is to get them to 'agree' with you.

First of all, I agree that pedophilia gets unfairly demonized. It's similar to thought policing.
As long as they do not abuse a child, try to abuse a child, or say that they are seriously going to abuse a specific child I see no reason that they should be shunned or persecuted.
However, you need to think critically about your position. Your argument isn't that strong.

>they are depicted as sick, twisted and demented hobos who do nothing but attempt to rape kids.

>this is not true at all!

For most people who are attracted to minors, this is true. However, there are also a few people like you described. It is unfortunate, however, that the media portrays everyone with a pedophiliac attraction as the scum of society.

>Did i choose to be like this? no. i was born this way and i have to deal with it.

This is anecdotal evidence and highly controversial. This won't help your argument if you assume it is true. Many people would disagree.

Personally, I believe that your attraction is much more likely to be controlled by epigenetics. I could go into more scientific details if you want me to but essentially I theorize that attraction is controlled by a mix of nature, nurture, and choice.

>child porn is treate the exact same way. people claim it's horrid abuse, explotation, will scar them and ruin their lives.

It has scarred the lives of many children. First of all, depending on the child's age, their brains may not be physically capable of understanding what is happening, why, and what the consequences are. Furthermore, very few kids and even a large number of adults don't know how to deal with mistakes they make or actions that they regret. Often times children are tricked into believing that what they are doing in good for them at the time but often regret it later. In young children, this can actually cause long term mental disturbance without therapy. Finally, sexual intercourse also causes many children pain as their organs are net yet ready for such stimulation. If the child gets pregnant, it can be fatal.

>out of curiosity i paid a visit to the darknet and took a peek at this so called child abuse.

This is very dangerous and saying this can actually lead to a search warrant on your computer. Also, many sites are also wired by cops. I'd be VERY careful if I was you OP.

>most, if not all the pics i saw were done by the will of the child. they all looked happy and cheerful, none looked like they suffer.

A lot of the time children are either forced or coerced into smiling and looking cheerful during the intercourse. This is often a facade and I will soon explain why.

>those few who did post ACTUAL abuse and assualt were very quickly shunned and flamed.

This is reasonable. Not that many people are fond of rape or things that look like rape. Especially videos of an actual person being raped and even more so of a child. An upset child usually leads to a sense of guilt, not something many people want to feel while watching porn.

>hell, even in their guidlines they stretch out quite a few times about "never interact etc. with the child if he isn't willing"

"Criminals cover their tracks to make it seem as if they have done nothing wrong. Often times, these criminals start to believe it themselves. They get comfortable in what they believe to be the justification for their actions and, in they end, they get sloppy."
-Paraphrase from La Noire

It's the internet. People tell lies all the time. You should try to think critically and from an objective viewpoint about EVERYTHING you see.

>i say, when is ANYONE old enough to decide to have sex?

People physically mature at different ages and rates. Before puberty, many of a child's physical organs are not yet developed and their brains are not yet physically capable of understanding the situation most of the time. It is rare for a child to be able to think critically and have strong enough emotional resilience to understand what they are doing and handle sexual intercourse. Some people say that after puberty is good enough, but even then the brain hasn't finished developing.

In fact, the brain doesn't usually finish developing until the early 20's, though it can vary based off of the critical thinking skills a person has practiced and learned during their teenage years. (Something which, sadly, isn't taught till' college)

Now, my personal opinion on child pornography is a bit mixed. First of all, if it isn't real, it's legal. Most people on this site would probably agree with me on that.

With real pornography, however, most likely the children really are being abused. I am of the opinion that a person should only have sex when they have matured enough physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Physically would be puberty, backed by biological reasons and the fact a pre-puberty sex can often be painful. Easy to check, will happen eventually.

Mentally would be critical thinking and being able to understand what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what the potential consequences are. Moderately difficult to teach, hard to judge.

Emotionally would be having a strong emotional resilience. Being able to maintain the ability of critical analysis under high emotional stress. If a child believes that an older person really loves them but they leave and the child falls into depression and/or commits suicide, it is a terrible tragedy that most likely could have been avoided had the child had a strong emotional resilience.
Very hard to teach, very hard to judge.

On the topic of tapes that have already been recorded I believe that child pornography should be treated as footage of violence. I believe that it should be used to learn from and cannot see much of a problem with it being masturbated to. It's not a crime for me to masturbate to footage of WWII or a genocide. It already happened, there is nothing we could do to change that and the best thing we can do is learn from it. The abusers, however, I believe are completely in the wrong. Just like murderers.

Overall OP I would suggest making your argument a whole lot stronger if you are going to be defending such a controversial point of view. Furthermore, I would suggest that you stick to cartoon/drawn porn or children. The real stuff can currently get into some serious life threatening trouble.

One thing I do think is BS is that seeing sex/nudity will have worse effects on a child than violence. I looked it up and there have been literally no direct studies because, and I quote, of the "moral and ethical implications of exposing children to sexually explicit content." They have a point, but I believe that it needs to be tested in some controlled way.

>>70277
It's unlikely you could find parents willing to subject their kids to that sort of test, so I don't see a point in bringing it up. It ain't gonna happen.

>>70278
I can dream, can't I?

>>70279
Have you heard of the series Dark Matters on the Science Channel? That's right up your alley, if you enjoy tales of disturbing scientific testing. Warning: If you love animals like Fluttershy, I'd advise you stay away from this show. There are some tales about animal experimentation.

>>70277
This is well-written.

>>70251
The trouble is you are being far too generalistic; and while your argument may be valid in some cases - and maybe for you too, as far as I know - it certainly isn't for others.

It is true that not everyone attracted to children is a monster. I disagree that some people are "born with it"; but I will allow that it can be very deeply ingrained and powerful in the pedophile's mind. So it is not monstrous or criminal to be a pedophile. But acting on it is a different matter. (I am going to assume that we have agreed that filming child pornography, and actually engaging in sexual acts with children, is wrong since it is exploitative in all cases and abusive in many.) With your logic, I could justify murder. After all, if a person was born with pathological a love of blood, guts and violence, why should we deny them what is clearly their calling?

Active pedophiles are undeniably monstrous because of the results of their actions. You can argue backwards and forwards about the inherent moral implications of finding children attractive, but you absolutely cannot deny psychological and scientific fact - that, overwhelmingly, child pornography causes infinitely more bad results for the children involved than good.

>out of curiosity i paid a visit to the darknet and took a peek at this so called child abuse.
You realise your IP is registered with Ponychan, this thread is full of buzzwords, and you've argued in favour of pedophilia? Stand by to receive party van.

I more or less agree with OP (save some of the stuff towards the end).

A lot of people genuiniely consume their free time talking about how they want to kill pedophiles and worrying if their family is vulnerable to one in the neighborhood. This seems a bit extreme to me.

My personal opinion on the whole CP issue is thusly: CP is now developed enough that we can and probably should work to develop a better term. "Child Pornography" suggests, in simple terms, that it was made willingly. I've seen a few other terms floating around, I think the one that stood out to me most was 'child abuse material' which I think is a distinction to make from 'Child Pornography'.

So when we make that distinction we can then make another distinction: does it have a victim or not? If the material has a victim I am all for getting it removed and treating it as socially unacceptable. If there is no victim I would say there should then be no problem owning or viewing it much less creating it. For instance, do you know who wants to see 14 year olds having sex, or who wants to have sex with 14 year olds more than any other demographic?

Other 14 year olds.

So then when they take pictures or make a video, I don't see where there is a victim here, and hence, I would consider this not to be a crime. Though its possession in the hands of a much older adult is questionable, again: no victim. I don't see where the crime is or how anyone is harmed.

>ready when they're 10

Geeze that sounds a little low. I know that we as a species are trending towards puberty in earlier ages, but 10!?!? I would need a strong argument with evidence to give that number credit.

Ideally I would try to shoot at least 14 and up, but then the average age of consent has been falling as far as I'm aware so my nearly 30 year old self could actually be falling behind the times in that number.

Personally I don't really care as I don't want to watch children having sex with each other, but I do see 'pedophilia' as a modern day witchhunt.

>>70282
It all hangs on your definition of abuse, and of victim. Is having sex with a child abuse? Doing so without their consent clearly is, but many people - myself included - would argue that even with their "consent" it still constitutes abuse, and therefore that child is still a victim.

Interesting point you raise about child pornography where no adults are involved - ie, sex between minors who film themselves doing it. It seems much less likely that one or the other is being abused and exploited. I'd still vote for preventing the distribution of such material, but more on grounds of principle than empirical wrongness. But then, how many examples of such media exist?

>>70282
There have been several episodes of Law & Order SVU, about situations where pedophiles have become the victims of a witch hunt. They had a really good insight as to how those things not only harm the perspective perpetrator, but also tie up the cops when they have important work to do. So everyone suffers.

>>70283
The closer we look at the issue the more developed and complex it becomes, or so I've found. And in a good way not in a bad way.

>Is having sex with a child abuse?

I'm careful to make a judgement. We have to know who is having sex with the child first. I'm in favor of the plus/minus 4 year concept, where there is a 4 year 'leeway' between partners : so a 20 year old and a 16 year old could hook up, a 21 and a 17, and at 18 it is no longer really an issue as they are an adult. If 16 is 'child' and 20 is the person having sex with, i'd personally say I don't think there's an issue here. Now if the person is 30 and the other is 16 I think this is problematic.

The trouble arises when we attempt to dictate which people are allowed to have sex with which people and which people are not allowed to have sex because society arbitrarily dictates it so. This just strikes me as unrealistic at best.

>would argue that even with their "consent" it still constitutes abuse, and therefore that child is still a victim.

In certain circumstances sure, but again: we're dictating for other people if they are victims are not. This can be problematic because they may not actually be victims, and in some rare instances they can even be the victimizer but society will insist they are the victim.

Not that I think that is very common, but I have encountered two scenarios just like that. One where a young lady blackmailed an uncle into having sex with her under threat of calling the police and saying he raped her. An odd situation I'm sure but if it has happened once, I'm inclined to think it has happened again in some other iteration.

Another instance is when the 'child' lies about their age in order to be seen as more attractive or more appealing. This seems much more common. Who is the victim here, really... the person who lied about their age to get laid or the person who was lied to and is now a sex offender for life and forced to live in a 'pedophile community' on the outskirts of civilization.

I'm very wary about declaring when other people are victims for them without looking at the situation in detail to determine said victim status.

>I'd still vote for preventing the distribution of such material, but more on grounds of principle than empirical wrongness. But then, how many examples of such media exist?

As for preventing distribution, to what extent? Criminalizing it? Criminalizing production of it? Just a sidenote but sexting is actually a crime in some places, and in some circumstances it can easily be considered producing child pornography.

I'm of the mind that media depicting under 18's having sex or nudity, etc etc. (no victim material) should not denote criminalization as long as there is no victim. And I am wary about declaring who is a victim even when they are willing and compliant and 'with' someone around their age. In short, I don't think CP that does not have a victim should require more legal action than confiscation, if that. There seems to be some evidence suggestsing that pornography of various types actually reduces 'real life' victimization. I would cite that but I'm on a 14 year old machine running windows XP and its incredibly slow... off the top of my head you should be able to find a study linking legalization/decriminalization of pornography including more extreme types and a decline in child sex abuse with some basic googling. Let me know if you want to find it and can't and I'll try to fetch that info.

>how many examples

I really don't know, I don't really go looking either, but I'm inclined to think 'victimless CP' is on a huge rise as pretty much every tween owns a digital camera and video/audio recording device in the form of a cellular phone or iphone etc. Compared to a decade ago, everyone has cameras and video recording devices and has probably thrown away several by the time they are 15. Not too long ago you generally needed expensive video equipment to make videos, so it was reasonable to expect video depicting minors sexually was created using those types of tools.

But no more. Just thinking out loud here, but from time to time the picture/video databases for cellphone users gets broken into, and this seems like it would be an ideal target if someone were looking to accrue vast amounts of 'personal' media including that of minors. Could you imagine, if seeing a picture of a minor in the nude or in a sexual situation were a crime, how many crimes you would commit if you saw every picture uploaded for one day on one of the cellphone databases?

So I'm inclined to think that 'victimless CP' media is far outpacing 'child abuse material' and if it doesn't already, will dwarf the 'child abuse' material in very little time. If thats true, then it would be an ideal place to 'farm for CP' to break into these databases and otherwise fetch or intercept sexting and victimless pornography that people make all the time with their cellphones or home computers.

But I really wouldn't know, it just seems quite sensible to me that the production rates of one - and methods and ease of doing so - are in far more demand and able to be done far easier than 'child abuse material'.

>>70284
Broadcast television aside, this really does happen.

People even go through 'sex offender lists' and pick out people and hunt them and kill them, even when the person they killed was lied to by a minor etc. etc.

Sadly 'pedophilia' is a political hearstring that politicians love to pull on to achieve their goals that are entirely unrelated. This is a sad consequence, just one of many, but indeed it is sad that people are in danger for having 'committed' a victimless crime, or even have been the victim but the other person is 'too young' to be anything else than the victim so they are not punished for lying and whatnot.

The pedophile witchunt has some nasty consequences.

>>70286
I didn't mention To Catch a Predator, cause that just, was not good.

Last edited at Fri, Jan 18th, 2013 09:12

>>70287
Didn't they stop production or cut way back on airing once they hooked that guy still on military duty?

I never really liked that show, it disgusted me how they trap people and make a big show out of it, but I recall there being once when they bagged someone in the US navy or marines and then the whole thing finnaly came under scrutiny and, if memory serves, the guy in the armed forces got off the hook.

>>70277
The only part of your post I have any issue with is

>>Did i choose to be like this? no. i was born this way and i have to deal with it.

>This is anecdotal evidence and highly controversial. This won't help your argument if you assume it is true. Many people would disagree.

>Personally, I believe that your attraction is much more likely to be controlled by epigenetics. I could go into more scientific details if you want me to but essentially I theorize that attraction is controlled by a mix of nature, nurture, and choice.

I'm not a genetics expert or even a scientist, but it seems to me that different people would have developed their pedophilic desires in different way. Maybe for some of them, choice and nurture didn't play a role at all.

For example, someone coming from a violent childhood home might have strong tendencies towards violence, right? But what about someone who had a perfectly happy childhood? He still might be a violent person. And anyway, I can't imagine who in his right mind would want to be attracted to children.

>>70288
I only liked the bushman. A cop who dressed in a giant bush costume to camouflage. He looked like a bad b-movie monster, lol.

>>70289
I don't know, in fairness some Anime girls do look rather childlike, and people are attracted to them.

>>70289
When I look at human behavior such as pedophilia, I try to always reference perspectives outside the human species.

To some people this is important to some degree and to others, 'we humans' are created above animals so comparing us to them doesn't help.

Anyways, if you want to look in nature for 'pedophilia' you'll definitely find it, and some more gruesome practices like infanticide (for which we have a kind of human counterpart, the cindarella effect I think its called).

So what I'm getting at here is that pedophilia seems to be prevalent in the nature side and I'm not entirely sure how one develops it 'nurture side' though I suppose its certainly possible, it seems you would need some training and conditioning - you know, some 'nurture' or environmental forces. Those would be kind of ackward to portray in the modern day I feel, but there was one poster who came by some time ago who seemed to draw a personal link between their feelings for minors and their religion and religious practices having more or less 'sheltered' them sexually so that they never dealt with their feeling as a minor and now they are dealing with 'minor feelings' as an adult. Its worth considering at least.

But in any event, I'm not sure pedophilia is learned all that often... to an extent. The desire to mate in other species rarely displays much concern for age difference. Many 'children' of other species are 'mated with' by grown adults even before the 'child' is of age to reproduce. I'm inclined to think there is a bit more nature at play - especially considering humanity's past a la colonial america and roman empire marrying standards - than nurture.

Last edited at Fri, Jan 18th, 2013 09:50

>>70285
Generally I agree with the principles you put forward - reasonable allowances in certain situations - but I think it is neither practical nor preferable for us to have laws that permit it. After all, legal law and moral right are not exactly the same thing - some things are legally prohibited that are not totally morally wrong, but it is still necessary for them to be legally prohibited.

The vast and over-arching reason for prohibiting all media of a sexual nature involving minors is because it simplifies the issue. And it's not an unreasonable simplification either - as I have argued above, I believe (and the law also seems to believe) that, while not all such material is destructive to the children involved, the vast majority of it is, even if it is in ways that are not immediately obvious. The prohibitive law is a simplification of the matter but not an over-simplification - and law must provide clarity. Laws that extensively detailed every possible version of a certain situation would be impossibly lengthy and impossible to enforce.

The trouble with trying to legalise "victimless" child porn is quite simply, how do you know the child is not being victimised? Clearly it's easy to say "Smile for the camera or I'll hit you again". It is impossible to tell from the videos or photos whether or not the child is being victimised, abused and exploited. So how would you police that? How would you verify what is ok and what isn't? Even if you were able to track down those involved with the production of the pornography, (A) Naturally the adult will tell you they did not victimise the child and (B) even if the child hasn't been instructed to lie, they may well be confused and not think they have been victimised either. Without bleating the "children don't know what's good for them" line over and over again, what children don't know can harm them and just because they feel fine at the time does not mean that they will not suffer from psychological problems at a later date.

There may well be drastic exceptions where, oddly, the minor is guilty of victimising and abusing the adult. Unlikely, but possible - but then there are drastic examples to all such legal situations as this, and we shouldn't let extremely unusual incidents dictate the general law; at most a proviso can be put in the small print of the law to allow for such a situation. Certainly you get problems like this with age of consent laws where the letter of the law is too strict and criminalises a 17 year old for having sex with a 15 year old - nearness of age exemptions have their place, and are an example of a permissive exception to the law. But I would not be in favour of a "victimless child porn" exemption. It's virtually impossible to physically police, and even harder to actually prove. The very nature of such psychological damage means it may be so deeply buried in the mind of the victim that they themselves don't think that they have been psychologically damaged, yet it can cause problems for them in later life; and different children will suffer to different degrees. The law deals with situations and decides that either an action was or wasn't a crime; and it's impractical for a law to be based on such difficult-to-measure factors as level of psychological damage.

What children don't know can harm them, and in the case of child pornography, it seems that it most often does. It is not good enough to say that the child was not forced or violently abused.
The nearest to "victimless child pornography" is nudist photography and video footage, and even in that situation it is not totally clear what is of a sexual and pornographic nature and what is not.

>>70292
I think you're right in that the "desire to mate" - total lust - can be indiscriminate in varying degrees. As you say, pedophilia is acted out in nature in various different species. And also see dogs humping the bejesus out of everything from legs to cushions. This is not, however, a justification.

There is value to be got from drawing comparisons with nature, but given that (as again you say) infanticide is also common in nature, the mere fact that "animals do it, so it must be ok" is not good enough. As humans we have a broad range of desires and urges from our "nature" roots, and since we have the developed IQ with which to understand what is right and what is not, we have a responsibility to use it. And that's what we're doing in this thread - debating the topic.

Broadly, I think that attraction to children is based on desires which are not vastly different from what non-pedophiles look for in sex partners. After all, most people prefer younger adults to old people for certain obvious reasons, and attraction to children is an extension of that logic. But different people will react differently to that; some will find the idea morally disgusting and block it right out of their mind, some might be open minded and decide that it can't be all that bad and want to give it a go. But I've laid out enough times in this thread why I believe that engaging in sexual acts with children is wrong; no matter how "right" it might seem for the pedophile.

>>70294
I don't think anyone's arguing that if attraction to children is purely involuntary, then it's okay to act on that attraction. It's pretty clear to me that it's selfish and criminal for an adult to use a child like that, no matter whether he has "consent".

The point is just that, if someone's attraction to children is involuntary, he can't be blamed just for having that tendency that he didn't choose.

>>70295
If you read my earlier posts you'll see that I qualified my statements by saying about five times that there is not necessarily anything wrong with being attracted to children. That is a matter of moral code, totally subject to opinion, and in any case involves no one but yourself, so does not put anyone else at risk.

If we were to monitor that, then we really would become the thought-police. But pedophilia comes under the jurisdiction of external moral arbitration when somebody actually acts on their pedophilic tendencies, thus involving another person.

>>70298
I came into the discussion a little bit late, I guess. I didn't see those posts. It's just that most people don't make this distinction, so I must have assumed you weren't either. Sorry.

Last edited at Fri, Jan 18th, 2013 10:54

>>70300
Not to worry. As you say, most people don't make this distinction.

>>70251
Hi OP.

This is a tough one because what you are saying is generally true. People through some combination of nature and nurture become attracted to children. I will define that as pre-pubescent children for a pedophile. We have other words for people who are attracted to sexually mature humans who are not 18 in the US. Most of them likely do not actually touch a child their entire life.

But another sad fact is that our species is completely out of it's damn mind when it comes to dealing with sex. Take what I said about the space between puberty and legal adult for example. We are programmed to be attracted to young and sexually mature. That is nature. We have also wisely decided that legal adults should not sexually interact with that age group because the power and experience difference matters and we are collectively stupid about sex.

So unfortunately it is a good idea that society be very wary about pedophiles. This is because when a child gets emotionally screwed up, the damage is much worse in the long run. The damage is deeper and more fundamental to their psyche, and harmful effects to themselves and other people are more severe for longer. I wish we were not also collectively stupid about the attraction/action difference, but your battle will likely be one that will not get easier until all people get better at being realistic and ethical about sexuality (or at least stop being insane).

I disagree when it comes to the porn. Mere happiness and smiles on children involved in sexual activity is a tiny slice of their lives. You are leaving out how they are very impressionable and basically being imprinted with the expectations and assumptions of the person interacting with them. They are not persons yet from a legal standpoint. One child might grow up fine and able to put those memories in context. Most do not and I challenge you to look up statistics of long term mental issues from those who were abused as children. I won't pretend to know what the reality of sex as a category is with respect to children other than teaching them that there is a time and place for self exploration. lots "little things" need taught. but that is a reality that I have no problem saying our society is not able to address.
Adults and children should remain sexually separate. The "porn" should stay fake (drawn, written, etc...).

I am afraid that I don't see it getting any better for you in the short term with the mindset that you have.

There's nothing wrong with being a pedophile or liking kids beneath you age group.

What's wrong is rape, and exploitation. You can have these feelings, but you can't act on them...at least not in a manner that would leave someone hurt.

>>70280
Interesting, I may look into that. Also, I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Specially' ponies.

(This is a half-joke, by the way)



>>70289
>I'm not a genetics expert or even a scientist, but it seems to me that different people would have developed their pedophilic desires in different way. Maybe for some of them, choice and nurture didn't play a role at all.

This is a very convoluted topic and I've noticed that it really isn't discussed on the internet that much. From what I've seen, the general idea is that "you are what your genetics make you out to be and that should be just accepted". This made a lot of sense for many years after we discovered DNA and most people thought that DNA was where it ended.

However, DNA is only a fraction of what makes a person who they are. Let me explain the three different GENERAL factors that I know of so far:

DNA: Your base genetic code. This has codes for all the different proteins in your body. (Protiens make up essentially your entire body and produce hormones and steroids.) If the code for a certain protein in your body is not in your DNA then you cannot produce that protein naturally without genetic engineering. However, this only tells you what proteins it is POSSIBLE for you to make.

Epigenetics: Epigenetics were discovered in 2007. Epigenetics is essentially the list of proteins from your DNA that are ACTUALLY being used or produced. Even if your DNA had codes for several proteins linked with a certain personality, it would mean nothing if your Epigentics didn't even allow those proteins to be produced. Epigenetics can be controlled by pretty much anything, including by yourself a bit. Your environment, how your parents lived, how you live, your levels of stress, etc. can all control your Epigenetic code. Generally, the healthier and happier you are, the better your epigenetic code will be for you and possibly your offspring.
Recently, Flutterguy posted an article stating that scientists suspected a strong link between Epigenetics and homosexuality. This supported the idea that sexuality is controlled by more than just DNA, but that nurture plays a large role and choice can affect you as well.

Humans are %99.9 the same. Epigenetics play a large role in shaping who you are physically. They are probably the reason that, when I was a little kid, I had blond and curly hair but as I grew older it quickly turned into brown and wavy hair.

The final factor I would classify as Nueroplasticity:
The brain is plastic, it changes constantly. Every day synapses are formed and broken. The formation of synapses is heavily controlled by your choices. They are the reason you get better at something the more you practice and the reason you can relate certain things with certain emotions.
Example: If you heard ice-cream truck music for the the first time, it probably wouldn't make you instantly happy. There was no memory to relate it to. However, once you saw that the truck playing the music was selling ice-cream (something which makes you happy) you would begin to associate that music with being happy. Thus, every time you heard the music, you would get happier. Alternitively, if the ice cream truck accidentally ran over your father, you would probably associate a negative feeling with that music. Thus, when you heard the music again, you would probably get sad.
However, you have a LOT of control over what events you associate with what feelings. You can get better at controlling these relationships with practice as well. Better control generally comes with a more mature/older brain.
Example: If the owner of the ice-cream company that killed your father decided to give you 1 million dollars, ice cream for life, and held an expensive funeral for your father then the music might bring about a bittersweet feeling.

What you feel is highly dependent on your values, your choices, and how you view life.

Example: If you heard the ice cream truck every day, you would probably associate the music with normal and boring. As such, you wouldn't feel as strong emotions the more you heard it. In other words, you let yourself get used to it, which is a very easy thing to do.

My theory on how this relates to pedophilia and other sexualities:

There are probably a lot of people whose genes say that they could possibly be a pedophile.
However, how a person was raised and their Epigenetics are what influences what synapses are formed initially and a persons initial attractions that they get during puberty and while the brain develops.
However, as the brain matures, I believe these attractions can be changed. Things that you were once attracted to can be turned into things you distaste, just as things you might distaste can be turned into things that you are attracted to. However, some things may be harder to change than others. Especially for those without practice.

This is all composed of what I learned and understand from the multitude of biology classes which I have had a near obsession with. If I am wrong in something or misunderstand something I would love to be called out.

>The trouble with trying to legalise "victimless" child porn is quite simply, how do you know the child is not being victimised?

Its an understandable concern, but for that matter, how do we know anyone in pornography or anyone with nudity exposing or sexually charged media of themselves was not victimized? The model who posed for the 'Statue of David' could easily have been threatened to pose 'or else I'll hit you' as well. The fine tooth comb i'm running throughs this here suggests that minors are assumed to be being coerced, while adults are not... suggesting minors are unable to willingly do anything in regards to nude or sexually provocative media, while adults are. Anyone can be forced to do anything with a smile, but it doesn't mean we should assume they all did it under threat against their will because of what our imagination is telling us might not be in the picture. We must actually investigate to know for sure.

To answer your question more directly, it would have to be viewed in context and preferably by a sex crimes division whose job it is to do just that. A minor being videotaped by an adult in a 'POV' type sex situation seems to strongly suggest there is a victim here to me. A minor sending a picture via their cellphone of their breasts or genitals doesn't seem to have an obvious victim. Now... in the former the person could just be really young looking or the camera person a tall minor, and in the latter it could be a 'smile or else' type coercion: but we're just speculating here. An actual investigation into the issue would ideally seek to do a few things

1) Identify if there is a victimization happening
2) Determine where the material comes from and who it comes from
3) Attempt to ID and find these people
4) Determine if victimization/charges should be brought beforehand and look for evidence to utilize during the physical investigation.
5) A catalouging system could ideally be used to reference questionable pornographic material. Face recognition used to try to identify participants, tracking to suggest physical location, and catalouging to see if this material is original or a redistributed copy and if the people aren't in other material and if that material can help tell us they are being victimized or not.

I think this is a little idealistic but it seems a better utilization of manpower and resources than simply throwing 'possesors' in prison for decades and labeling them sex offenders for life. My personal opinion here is that there is litttle or no harm in dealing
with copies of copies and that the real focus for liberating victims should be on identifying them and focusing on 'original' material. A common viewpoint is that viewing the copy material still re-victimizes the people in it, but I really don't see how thats possible. In the case of embarassment sure, but you would have to have specific material targeted specifically to people who would be in contact with the person in the media, and this isn't typically how CP works unless its something along the lines of a highschool student making material and it accidentally 'slips' into their social circles. If I see a person get hit by a car on TV it does not hit them by a car all over again for every viewer. It may be mortifying but, if the video is shown to a very small very selective unorganized and scattered population of which the victim has 0 knowledge and 0 contact, I don't see how this possibly re-victimizes them. Its terrible sure, but what I am getting at here is that copies of copies are probably a lot 'healthier' to circulate than destroy, as destroying prompts scarcity and scarcity prompts production. Drug market is a reference I use here. Production a la victim is what we all don't want, and I really see that as the central target in the issue of exploiting children for sexual material. What 'good' does it to them or the process that victimizes them if we only focus on bagging people across the world who have a copy of a picture and have no connection to the production side of things? Or if we focus our resources on minors who willingly sext or make porn of themselves? It doesn't do any and the process continues, we just land people in prison by frying 'small fish' while overburdening our justice system with those 'small fish' - we should really be going for the big one and helping the victim imo. I'm not considering two willing minors taping themselves or sexting to each other as victims here.

>It is impossible to tell from the videos or photos whether or not the child is being victimised, abused and exploited. So how would you police that? How would you verify what is ok and what isn't?

I think it might be easier than you're assuming. I really don't know for sure though, but we have quite a lot of technology to levy at this issue and a decent amount of research. Just picturing a system here, but initially there would probably be material that needs to be reviewed, and then we can sort that into material where we can possibly identify people and material where we cannot. We can also, via catalouging, catch which material is original or new and which isn't, which helps simplify the search. Ip tracking gives us location. Cases are built for identifiable individuals and once located they can be investigated physically which should at that point be a dead givaway if they are victimizing others or not, given that the original material was inconclusive.

>Even if you were able to track down those involved with the production of the pornography, (A) Naturally the adult will tell you they did not victimise the child and (B) even if the child hasn't been instructed to lie, they may well be confused and not think they have been victimised either

At this point in the game though, neither A nor B really matter. If material has been identified as having a victim and the persons are able to be tracked down and found, testimony of either really doesn't matter much at that point. The child isn't the one pressing charges either, so their account might not even need to be used (though it should probably at least be referenced). We understand the process of coercion and grooming well enough at this point to illuistrate it to a jury I'm fairly certain. The child's opinion on the matter or the defendant's claim of willingness really aren't going to shake up the prosecution or jury I would think.

>There may well be drastic exceptions where, oddly, the minor is guilty of victimising and abusing the adult.

It may not be that drastic or uncommon where a minor lies about their age to have sex with an adult, I really don't know, but I've personally been lied to by a minor about her age several times, and they never lie about being younger they lie to be older and 'old enough'. For instance, back when I was 21, I went out with a young lady who told me she was 17 and her birthday was next month. I never did anything with her but it alarmed me a little about her age... I figured once her birthday hit it wouldn't be such an issue. Well she was lying... she was 16 and her birthday coming up was going to make her 17 (age of consent in that state, but neither here nor there as nothing happened). Thankfully I am very cautious about relationships with the opposite sex and I recognized some red flags which turned me off to her within a week. She actually sold me the pat rat I mentioned in the other thread *lol* thats how we met.

Another incident I encountered, more recent, a friend of mine got a name and number of someone at a 21 and up bar. Instead of calling her he decided to check her on facebook first: she was 16. Fake ID. For that matter my stepsister used to use a fake ID at 16 to get into 18 and 21 and up nightclubs. This leads me to believe that minors who lie about their age to 'hook up' and go to 18 or 21 and up events are actually somewhat more common rather than uncommon, and its a small step from there to see them trying to 'get laid' or 'hook up' while at said 18 or 21 and up venue. Its kind of 'the point' about going to bars and nightclubs for a lot of people.

>But I would not be in favour of a "victimless child porn" exemption. It's virtually impossible to physically police, and even harder to actually prove.

I'm not sure I fully see your perspective here. Care to elaborate as to why you think it would be so difficult? On the flipside, if a person produces 'child pornography' of themselves, policing this as a crime is detrimental when we introduce punishment. Imagine: in order to stop Jill from victimizing herself we have labled her a sex offender for life and given her one felony charge for every picture she took of herself, 12 counts of possession as well as one for production. In order to save her from vicitmizing herself we have labled her a sex offender for life and put her in prison for 1 year for every felony, 12 + production = 13 years. And this is nothing near what a guy would get I believe. This seems quite detrimental to me, and if we throw in her boyfriend at the time who is also her age, this is two people who will be going to prison and labled a sex offender for life. All to stop them from victimizing themselves? I would cautiously say they were victimized by the system here rather than themselves or anyone else.

>The nearest to "victimless child pornography" is nudist photography and video footage, and even in that situation it is not totally clear what is of a sexual and pornographic nature and what is not.

Well how about sexting, or otherwise taking pictures of yourself to send to people? Or how about two minors - lets say 15 - making a video of themselves boyfriend/girlfriend? I can understand removing the material for its content but not punishing people for it.


>>70294

>This is not, however, a justification.

Right and it wasn't meant to be. I'm really not one of 'those people' who parade around that everything that 'feels natural' is hence justified for being so. As humans we are able to discern and stop ourselves, I see no reason why we should not practice these things when appropriate. I was mostly illuistrating that 'pedophilia' translated into other species just doesn't equate to the human counterpart and how we treat it, and that there may be more nature involved than the person I was responding to seemed to assume.

"If it feels good, do it" is not a maxim I live by save some recreational drug use I suppose nor reccomend for others, particularly when harmful to others. Self control is an important aspect of social interaction and discarding it is, in my mind, completely unwise and unsafe.

>>70251
God damn, why do pictures of ponies without fail tug at my sympathy strings?

>>70335
Well, it is true that children aren't the only people who can be victimised, and many adults in pornography are being victimised as well. But:
1. This is in no way a justification for easing the ban on child pornography
2. As society and humanity in general we have a responsibility for protecting children, who are always assumed to have a certain degree of vulnerability in relation to adults, who are in a position to exercise power over them.
2. (i) As society in general we also have a responsibility for protecting vulnerable adults as well, but it is assumed that unless there is evidence otherwise then adults are responsible for themselves and fully willing and consenting and understanding in what they are doing, in ways that children are assumed not to be.
3. For the purposes of having a clear and definitive law, there is a cut-off age (usually 16, 18 or 21, depending on what the issue is and what the country is). People older than that age are assumed by the law to have responsibilities and capabilities that people younger than that cut-off age do not.
3. (i) Of course, in reality not everybody changes at exactly the same age, some develop early, some late, and nobody changes overnight on their birthday. But this is the most practical, practicable, and powerful application of the law possible.

It doesn't necessarily matter whether a child is smiling for the camera under threat or not. The "smile or I'll hit you" is an example of one of many possible coercive situations. To prove how obvious this is, it could easily be "smile and I'll give you a chocolate bar". Now the child isn't being threatened or forced, are they? But they're still being coerced. And it's probably usually not even as basic as that. Whatever the situation, in a large majority of cases of such instances as this, the child likely does not fully understand the implications of what is being done to them, or is afraid of what might happen if they try to resist, or is mistakenly hoping for something in return for not resisting. And again, maybe in some freak cases (yes, I say freak cases, because I think it highly rare) the child will "understand", will want the adult, and it will be a relationship. But we cannot build the law entirely on such a minor exception, and the forces in play (the child's psychological health for their entire life) are so dangerous that it is not wise even to allow it in as a loophole or clause on the small print.

Your investigation seems to be more than "a little" idealistic. Given the volumes of child pornography created and the international nature of the deep web, investigating each incident is an impossibility. Legalisation will not bring it all above board into some utopian world of regulation and fair play.

One thing I might see a little more eye-to-eye with you is on actual possession of such material. I'm not sure how the law actually stands, but certainly most would agree that possessing such material is not as bad as actually creating such material. And should these people be publicly exposed? Depends. Witch-hunts and the like I am not in favour of, and I will return to my previous assertions that pedophilia itself is not monstrous in itself (we have no scale can we use to measure fetishes); what is abhorrent is taking action on it. Public exposure should be reserved for criminals and offenders, and if it is not a crime against anyone to possess such contraband that you did not create, you should not be exposed.
But on the other hand, distribution of such material, I'm fairly sure is illegal, which means that anyone possessing such material has engaged in an illegal action to get it. There is also the argument that people who download child pornography, even if they don't pay for it, drive the trade - they provide web hits and download statistics and encourage people to continue producing. It's a slightly weak point but not an invalid one.

So vicious victimisation and witch-hunting is bad - but then "witch-hunt" is in itself a negative term, so of course it's bad, and few rational and reasonable arguments that debate without emotion would argue that it was good. But just because these people don't deserve necessarily to be publicly strung up, we shouldn't deduce that what they do is totally acceptable and fine, and there may still be cause for intervention and prohibition.

Your ideas of policing child pornography seem unworkable to me. For a start, few people will want to analyse hours and hours of videos of child pornography for their job - much of which may well be abusive and violent - and those who do probably wouldn't want to admit it to the public, at any rate. But even with that to one side, it still has no hope. Look at the world of legal pornography between consenting adults. There are billions and billions of videos produced, non-stop, endlessly, and there is no hope of regulating that in the slightest. Why should child pornography, even if it was legalised, be any easier? IPs are easy to hack and adjust (.tor) and we can guarantee that people dealing with child pornography know the tricks of the trade. Again, just because it is legalised, doesn't mean it will suddenly all come clean and above board.

>Minors lying about their age to have sex with an adult.
This is really a different issue. "Child pornography" deals with sex with underage children who either have not yet hit puberty or have only just begun it. There is no one who would mistake an underage child who lied about their age for someone of legal age, and even if they were foolish enough to make that mistake, the court would not believe them.
Teens, on the other hand, are a different matter. This is not pedophilia, this is ephebophilia (I think) - that is, love of teens who are not of legal age. Physically and morally this is more of a grey area, since teens are more knowledgeable, more capable of understanding, and more physically capable. This does not make it automatically acceptable, but it does mean that it is more debatable and grey than child pornography.
But at any rate, this does not justify child pornography. No one will be fooled into believing a child is of the required age, and almost none of the justifications you could give for acting on ephebophilia apply for acting on pedophilia.

>Care to elaborate as to why you think it [policing child pornography] would be so difficult?
So I have set out here why I think that policing "acceptable" child pornography would be (a) impossible, and (b) generally bad. It is impossible because of the logistics and practicalities, and it is generally bad because, since I believe that almost all child pornography is damaging and abusive (even if it doesn't look like it) save for an infinitesimal number of exceptions.

As for children producing child pornography themselves, you forget that the law provides differently for minors and for adults. If a minor was found distributing child pornography, even if it is of themselves I am in favour of their punishment. Firstly, they are encouraging the trade and activity that is so damaging and bad. Secondly, they will not be labelled for life and given felony charges, they will be sent to juvenile detention and given appropriate treatment. You forget that the law which prohibits child pornography does so because it holds children up as having higher need of protection under the law - therefore it is illogical to punish a minor so extensively. Instead, it is more likely that a minor distributing child pornography will be given psychological help, and effort will be put in to find out why the child was doing what he or she was doing.

Hopefully I haven't rambled too much. I also hope I don't come across as a simplistic fool repeating "Think of the children!" and refusing to listen to reason. I accept that there are grey areas. BUT, the law MUST be firm and absolute, the law MUST be practicable and enforceable, and what grey areas there are are too small and too few to warrant any kind of exception or allowance from the law.

>>70355
I heard on a show about cyber police they do have to look through some images of pedophilia to verify how bad it is. The people who had the misfortune of doing so talked about the way a war vet with a thousand mile stare, talks about his tour of duty.

>>70332
That's not a bad set of descriptions.

When it comes down to what we consider deviations from the "norm" we always point to Nature and Nurture.

Nature is Genes essentially. Little sequences that make a protein or code for something that can affect populations of organisms in ways that get tracked over tens to hundreds of generations and longer.

Nurture has been the catch-all for things that happen to you after conception that can change you from the norm or such. Chemical exposures, diseases, interactions with other people, how you were raised, the choices you made.

Epigenetics straddles the border because it has parts that are constructed (DNA, RNA, Protein), but effects that last generations. It's a system that essentially lets the experiences of previous generations be wired in as biases when it comes to things like behavior, nutrition use, and lots of other undefined things. How hard these biases are wired in is an open question. They tend to last three or so generations and the "Triggers" that alter them are still very much an open question and since they have to do with how we behave they will get very controversial. I would look at the following kinds of things to possibly alter that system,
*War
*Physical Trauma
*Mental Trauma (Or mere extreme change in mental bias perhaps)
*Extreme changes in nutrition
*Disease
*Other basic alterations that might affect a group of primates for several generations and maybe not all harmful

For something like Pedophilia it's hard to tell where it fits in. Is it analogous to sexual orientation? So far that phenomena looks more and more like there is the external sex, and internal gender and you can be male or female on the outside and inside (I don't know how asexuality fits in). So I don't think that an attraction to prepubescent humans would fit in that system (though like any network there will be some parts in common). Besides most pedophiles are not homosexual,
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

>"Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." "


So the question remains, is pedophilia like another orientation, or is it like a paraphilia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

Maybe another way of looking at it is, is it a matter of imprinting on an object when one is learning about sexuality, or is there a way for the "partner attraction" system to focus on age groups exclusively?

I would look at control groups like those who are attracted to older people or something similar that I can't think of as a control right now. Regardless of the harm it causes or the source, pedophilia needs to be understood because there is objective harm associated with it and that is enough for me.

edit: wow this is super long, sorry !! Its easier for me to proofread and revise on a different machine than this one lol. Take your time.

>>70355

>posession of

In the states we typically issue one felony charge per individual article posessed. If i'm not mistaken the consequences for this have been lessened some, from several years per individual article to about six months to a year, just going off of the top of my head in huffpo's crime section. Hopefully across the pond they wouldn't treat it quite as terrible as we do here, relatively speaking.

I don't think that we really disagree on much aside from where the grey areas are, how big they are, and if there should be exceptions. I generally agree as a whole its a 'bad thing' - minors and pornography of them - but what I see here in the states is that overzealous prosecution and possibly an overhyped public fear as well, are leading to some very poor consequences such as pedophile communities on the outskirts of most every major city. The reason for this is because registered sex offenders of certain infractions are disallowed from living within X distance of schools. While this is somewhat sensible, the distance has been increased over time and there are entire 'uninhabitable zones' which cover almost all of an entire city, forcing people to live on the outskirts of a city or town where there generally isn't things like public transportation and where they cannot access jobs or services easily becuase of that. This leads me to believe the law over here is a lot less 'considerate' of the situations individually and more in favor of arbitrary punishment. When you start to measure the US's crime statistics in regards to per capita, prosecuted victimless, and whatnot you can see that we tend to be quite a bit more zealous in our 'crime' prosecution than many other places. I'm thinking perhaps they do handle individual cases with more consideration in other places than they do here. This may be a core foundation of the back end of the 'pedophilia problem' that often gets overlooked... in other words, pedophilia might not be such a big problem if we didn't turn it into such a big one, all arguments about legalization and victimization aside.

>Given the volumes of child pornography created and the international nature of the deep web, investigating each incident is an impossibility. Legalisation will not bring it all above board into some utopian world of regulation and fair play.

And I think here is where we have a bit of a problem. Yes it is impossible to physically investigate each article. However digitally I don't think its impossible at all to provide some baseline investigation into every article. Software for one is going to be able to handle quite a lot of the footwork, software that appears already available and functional, ranging from face recognition to ip tracking (of which we should all know by now that .tor is far from a sufficient protection in regards to anonyminity, at least here in the states it has not been and quite a few people have been convinced it provided anonyminity and then been bagged by the fed once records were obtained from isps and if memory serves .tor itself) to image referencing .

Anyways as you were saying, it is and impossibility to investigate each article - I say this is true in a physical sense but in a digital sense you would have to have the article in the first place to even be aware of it or acknowledge it, hence digitally investigating it seems the next plausible step for any justice department. Now when we cannot physically access where we think the material is coming from as it comes from other countries, that becomes their juristiction and generally requires at least an OK to go fetch the people in question. When this doesn't seem practical or is too costly, all too often we're left still holding the 'end user' or 'consumer' - the posessor of the material, and as they're the only person we physically have access to, they end up being punished for it as if they were 'that person' overseas I'm guessing, largely because we have to have our 'fall guy' and someone has to pay, and if we can't make the victimizer pay people seem willing to settle for the end consumer instead. At least thats what I'm thinking is the dynamic to some extent here. Someone has to pay for victimizing the child so the justice system and the public will be appeased as long as it is so, even if they did not. It seems the case in the states, and I would assume anywhere else were pedophilia is a political heartstring that is tugged on to play the public.

>Public exposure should be reserved for criminals and offenders, and if it is not a crime against anyone to possess such contraband that you did not create, you should not be exposed.

Definitely agree, but the distinction I'm making is the presence or absence of a victim, rather than if they are a criminal offender. The latter term is very empty to me, but I think we're more or less in agreement here we just may be taking different passes at the terminology and concepts (i.e. 'crime against anyone' comparable to 'victim'). I agree that prohibition extends to, rather than makes an exception for, adults who engage with minors beyond the +/- 4 year difference concept. Its my understanding that what you mentioned above is not the case in the states.

As for the legalization bit I think I should try to clarify. My concern with the law and legalization/decriminalization is that we are doing exponentially more harm than we are preventing, particularly when we factor in things like 1 article = 1 felony charge and manditory sentencing aspects which also include the 'sex offender for life' bit. My other concern here is that by being incredibly diligent and fastidious in our persecution and prohibition of material that doesn't have a victim - and this is more along the lines of older children than very young - we are creating way more damage than these kids could ever do to themselves by prosecuting them, and in the case of the very young children, while I too find that material disgusting and abhorrent and morally wrong, what worries me is that by reducing availability of it to certain measures we are generating more victims.

A case in point might be drug prohibition such as marijuana, cocaine, etc. Those things cost, at most, less than a dollar to produce what ends up being 20 or 30 or 50 dollars worth of merchandise. The biggest reason for the difference in price is because of prohibition. By forcing the drug market to go criminal, and underground, we hence force it to become violent and organized and at the same time the end user's consumption cost goes up due to scarcity and legality. This in turn fuels the drug trade in criminal sense, and makes drugs more profitable than they would be.

My concern is that this translates to the market of child pornography, and some investigation seems to suggest this is exactly the case and if I can get on a better computer I will try to fetch that information for you, but there appears to be a direct relationship between availability of CP or similar such (EP? teens that is) and vicitmized children. Unlike the drug market, CP is not 'actually' consumed like drugs are. When a person does drugs, they're gone. If a person views CP they can copy it and send it along for others to see. This means that some significant portion of demand can be met without producing new material, and this is where I think arbitrary prohibition fails. If by destroying and prohibiting all CP/EP/Porn or nudity of under 18/16's it seems that the people who consume that material are prompted to have new material produced or even to act on their urges.

Now the last part is a big one. There is a lot of disagreement here in general, but the angle I disagree with is that when people view or consume digital copies/victimless CP/EP they are promoting victimization. In regards to web traffic... web traffic is generally a good thing for sites that obtain revenue via ads or have some need for popularity, I'm not so sure that a site or place hosting CP/EP actually benefits from more traffic like other websites do. Certainly, if we all go to 'The Hub' site to view MLP and catch a couple advertisements on the video and page, we're contributing to that.

However, who is paying for clicks on a CP/EP site? I would assume the vast majority if not near entirety of advertisers would NOT want to advertise knowingly on a site that depicts minors (CP/EP) like that. Who would really dare to advertise on a CP/EP site other than other entities that share that niche interest? It seems to me that, by viewing half a dozen pieces of media which are several years old, this is the 'lesser of two evils' compared to needing original and new material created and that those old digital copies produce no victimization.

Jumping back into idealism here, imagine if we could create an environment where we didn't have to lock up people who possesed digital copies for a year for every instance of, and where we could significantly reduce victimization of children AND steal the steam away from the actual underground industry that makes money from producing this stuff. I think this environment can be achieved by allowing availability of preexisting material, probably in a controlled manner or setting, and not driving scarcity/demand by destroying material as bothersome as the idea may be.

We may have to agree to disagree there, but to me, it makes some sense. It also makes sense, to me, that certain material can be utilized to help pedophiles and the like direct their urges towards the material instead of towards a victim. There is a huge problem here though... if all material of a sexual nature which depicts people under 18/16 is prohibit, then this angle of treatment and diverting urges cannot be used.

And if that angle of treatment reduces victimization and assists the pedophile in functioning with society and their therapist in a positive manner, it needs to be looked at and considered on those merits. Currently with arbitrary criminalization of each individual article in certain areas, regardless of context such as sexting or victimless or it being unoriginal and a several year old copy, we cannot look at this option. We may actually be driving scarcity which in turn produces demand and increases profit. Though it seems unusual, I genuinely think that we can utilize what already exists in the 'underage porn' market to help pedophiles and reduce actual human victims. We just can't do it when the law dicates it cannot be utilized and instead must be destroyed, as well as, more or less, anyone who saw it. Except for police or prosecutors of course, they're immune to the 'if you saw it, you're going to prison for looking' angle, which in my mind is a prime example of prosecuting thought crime (unless the person actually required a victim and produced material).

>few people will want to analyse hours and hours of videos of child pornography for their job - much of which may well be abusive and violent - and those who do probably wouldn't want to admit it to the public, at any rate.

As it currently stands I don't see how this is unavoidable, much less in the idealistic setting I proposed. In order to handle the the material legally it must be looked at regardless. Someone has to do it, someone is doing it, someone has been doing it. I'm not sure how you could possibly work prohibition of material without seeing it, in the current real world example or in my ideal setting. There have to be human eyes that can say 'oh, this isn't actually a child, this is a famous porn star who looks really young we can throw this one out' or 'there is no way to tell if this person is an adult or child because the picture cuts off' and there has to be someone, currently, who looks for original material to get leads on where production is happening. I dont see how it is at all avoidable, my proposition just makes a distinction between material where we can ID people and victims and those that cannot or do not appear to be vicitmization. I suppose I more or less agree that at very young ages it all becomes rather moot and we can default to considering the child a victim. Where to draw the line though is sketchy, if the average age that kids start having sex in some areas is 13 years of age this is shooting pretty low in regards to age and I'm not sure how or where to draw the 'age line' when you consider that roughly half of 13 year olds in certain areas or demograhpics are sexually active. It seems like it might be better to consider the media produced to be contraband and confiscate/destroy it but not to criminalize the 13 year olds involved. Now an adult and a 13 year old is different I agree.

>Look at the world of legal pornography between consenting adults. There are billions and billions of videos produced, non-stop, endlessly, and there is no hope of regulating that in the slightest. Why should child pornography, even if it was legalised, be any easier?

Because the nature and method of the two in regards
to production are quite different. There are lots of adult porn actors but are there lots of child porn actors? There are lots of adult porn sites but are there lots of child porn sites? Because pornography of minors is either consumed 'underground' or by other minors by and large, we have a very different game on our hands than we do with the adult porn industry. You can walk into a shop and find thousands of porn videos but I highly doubt you'll ever find one that caters to child or teen porn in the same way. There are no child/teen porn acting awards, and anyone buying and selling porn of minors suggests heavily that the material is original. Unlike adult.

Further those porn sites for adults profit from more hits and traffic via ads, and I really don't think the same applies to underage. As above, who really would risk advertising on a site like that much less paying for clicks that come from a site like that?

I don't really see the two as comparable, adult porn media and underage porn media. When I think about where the material exists and where it doesn't in comparison to each other, it seems to me that this makes it naturally easier to scrutinize because the two rarely exist together nor are advertised nor handle their revenue in the same ways.

>Secondly, they will not be labelled for life and given felony charges, they will be sent to juvenile detention and given appropriate treatment. (...) therefore it is illogical to punish a minor so extensively. Instead, it is more likely that a minor distributing child pornography will be given psychological help, and effort will be put in to find out why the child was doing what he or she was doing.

as long as this is the case I'm with you, however I'm not aware that in the states we do this. Juvenille Detention Centers are notoriously abusive here, and we have a penchant for vengance and punishment while leaving out rehabilitation. If rehabilitation and averting extreme punishments like felony charges and
sex offender lists are the practice there, as they should be, I'm all for it.

However in the states I am not convinced that any rehabilitation happens in JDC by and large and in general (certainly always exceptions I am simply unware of them). 'The punishment fits the crime' seems to be the only major concern with the justice system here, rehabilitation is a pipe dream and little more.

And the more we sensationalize the issue, the more punishment is viewed as required to fit the more and more heinous crime (more and more heinous because of sensationalizing rather than the crime actually being more and more heinous).

Our justice system here spends about 20% per individual of what they spend in Canada and Australia. I don't have UK's data. However this should give you a decent idea that we do not rehabilitate here, we just punish. This is largely the cause of recidivism and why our 'land of the free' has more prisoners per capita than any other nation by a large margin.

With that in mind, I tend to support decriminalization where it seems that our justice system here fails to rehabiltate and the 'crime' doesn't have a victim, because as I see it, the damage done by prosecution is far greater than damage prevented, not just to individuals but to society, particularly when we're dealing with actions that didn't produce a victim. Otherwise, we are producing and victimizing people with our own approach to the issue that really don't need to be imo.

Last edited at Sun, Jan 20th, 2013 10:05

>>70359
Great Scott, that's an in-depth post. I promise to come to it before too long - but I hope you don't mind if I wait until I have time to go through it properly!

>>70376
i'm sorry i should have trunicatd and revised, but after making some decent sized posts and trying to do just htat and accidentally deleting major parts of those posts due to the crappiness of this computer, I'm adamant about getting them posted once they are finished before I can accidentally delete them.

I'll eh... try to constrict whatever reply to your reply. If you want to make two responses that is cool. Maybe one for 'I agree' and 'this makes sense' and another for 'i take issue' and 'i'm not sure I agree' or something.

My bad :<

>>70376
Also some of us try to cultivate a slower response style here. At the very least no one should look down on anyone for not responding for while. A week or two even. Some of these issues are HARD. Rushing these kinds of discussions is probably bad. Sure you can respond right away, but you don't always want to. Especially on an issue like this.

I don't have a background in psychology... but I do have an attraction to young girls. So I feel I can speak about this issue.

As far as I can tell, my attraction is totally involuntary, because I never wanted to be this way. I think everyone in this thread understands that it's not exactly a choice, even if pedophilia isn't precisely a genetic issue. And I was never abused, either by my parents or anyone else. I had a perfectly normal childhood.

I've never once acted on my attraction, and I never will, because 1) I know it's wrong, 2) I have good self-control and 3) the "urge" isn't all that strong anyway, even if the attraction is. The only girls I find attractive are the ones who would get me at least ten years in federal prison. I have very little interest in women my own age, even the supposedly attractive ones - I've never met a woman in her twenties who could compare in beauty to a young girl. My traditional family fully expects me to get married, too, so I don't know how I'm going to handle that. I sure as hell can't tell them the truth.

I've never told anyone about how I am, simply out of fear. Even now, I'm writing this post away from home (yes, I'm just that paranoid.) Even though I know I'm not a danger to anyone, adult or child - even though I've never even thought of committing such a crime - I don't trust anyone enough to open up to about it.

I don't know for sure, obviously, but I suspect most pedophiles are completely inactive, either out of moral reasons or a fear of the law. If so, that's a very good thing.

Still, I feel pretty strongly about adults who abuse children - they deserve everything they get, and any porn they might produce is an extension of that abuse. I'm not going to try to pass off that kind of abuse by calling it consensual, either, because that would simply be justifying a selfish, evil desire. The issue of possession is maybe a little more complicated, but I agree with the idea that downloading material is encouraging it in some sense, whether or not money is involved (paying for it would obviously be more of a direct type of support.) And since there's no practical way to tell whether a certain relationship between an adult and a child is really consensual in an actual sense, as extremely unlikely as that is, I don't think we can make any exceptions to the law without creating more victims. I do think drawn material like Japanese lolicon art is truly "victimless", though, so maybe that would be an acceptable substitute? It's just ink and paper, after all.

A public push for psychological treatment of pedophilia might be a good idea too. If the condition itself isn't stigmatized, people who really can't control their desires might be more inclined to find treatment and some potential victims might be saved. The only problems I can think of with this kind of plan are that it would be extremely difficult to achieve and that, as far as I know, there is no treatment for pedophilia aside from basic therapy.

For my part, I'm prepared to keep playing along and pretending I'm normal and I guess getting married to a woman I'm not physically attracted to. But attraction is more than physical, so maybe it will end up working out? I'm not exactly hopeful about it. In any case, until the atmosphere surrounding this issue changes, I'm pretty much forced to live this way or else shame myself and my entire family.

But there are worst fates than this. In the grand scheme of things, the burden I have to carry is very light. My work keeps me constantly preoccupied anyway, so I don't even think about it that often.

>>70400
I'm really glad that you and people who identify with the issue at hand have a place to come and speak candidly. Thank you for sharing. It seems like you are not in a lot of distress over the issue, and that probably mirrors the lack of strong urge I suppose.

Last edited at Tue, Jan 22nd, 2013 17:43

>>70251
That is usually because they are the worst scum in existence,what happens to the kids they molest is pretty disgusting.

You can't tolerate people like that,often times they will try to destroy a child as a bonus to sexually assaulting it.

>>70403
He sort of, you know explained that he does not (and I hope that he does not ever) rape kids? Solidifying that the point that Pedo =/= child rapist. In his case and in similar cases, how is he not anything but marginally different than anyone else?

Secondly, I find your use of the word plenty unusual. Could you explain to me what you mean (as in some sort of actual number/statistic you could cite) when you said plenty?

I'm not even going to touch that morality nonsense.

>>70359
Hopefully you won't be put out if my post isn't as long as yours. Anyway, we're largely converging in agreement on what is correct and what is not in this issue. Our disagreements mainly stem from differing assessments of the practicalities of whatever regulation and policing might be, and also differing experiences from living in different countries.

Nevertheless, we blat on.

I'm not aware of the actual laws here (UK) regarding general possession of child pornography. But I could believe it if they were a little more "reasonable" (that is, not soft, but not sensationalist either) due to the relative lack of witch-hunts in Britain compared to the US. Without stereotyping the nation as a whole, it appears that there are a lot of very vocal right-wing groups in America (many of them white, republican, Christian, etc) that are much more potent than their English counterparts (Britain being, on the whole, a bit more liberal). We do have media storms (currently Britain is boiling with fury over revelations about national hero Jimmy Saville, much-loved philanthropist and good guy, who was recently revealed to be a pedophile and a serial child-molester) but we don't tend to have witch-hunts and public exposure to quite the same extent as in America. Therefore it would make sense to me that such laws as we have about child pornography, and the possession of, are of a more practical nature than of a witch-hunt / public example nature.

I do agree with you that over-zealous persecution of pedophiles is bad. Behind every crime is a reason why it was committed. Behind every abhorrent, evil, child-molesting monster is a reason they became that way. I don't mean to absolve them of their crimes, not in the slightest, but public exposure and over-zealous persecution gives no opportunity to actually correct the problem as well as punish it. Especially if somebody is publicly outed as a sex-offender for life. How can anyone be expected to move on and try to cure themselves of their unhealthy desires if everywhere they go people assume the worst of them? Punishment of crime is good (that's how the law works). Public exposure, when necessary, is for the safety of members of society. Vicious revenge on behalf of an outraged public is not acceptable. The law should be impartial. After all, some pedophiles have their own history of abuse, and the blame doesn't entirely rest on their shoulders. Again, I don't mean to absolve them of the crime they committed - even an insane person can be guilty of murder - but in dealing out retribution for the crime the law must be impartial and not swayed by outrage, and the law must consider why the crime was committed.

Eh ... I just disagree with your points about regulating child pornography. Even digitally. What's the use of having software that scans for recognisable "abuse patterns" in videos (a dubious notion in itself, isn't it?) if children can be told "smile or I'll hit you again"? Something as deeply psychological as trauma and abuse and misuse is going to be very difficult to spot with digital software, and far too voluminous to be judged by people - even if any people would be willing to participate in such work. The issue is very, very subjective too. Just from watching a video or seeing pictures it can be very hard to ascertain if what you're seeing is "victimless" or not, and then you do have to find the people who produced the material to be sure, and this is all hideously impractical. Imagine how much it would cost, to start with.

I'm not entirely sure that legalisation does solve problems. I have laid out why I don't think it would make regulation any easier (the vast and unpoliceable international world of child pornography will not shrink and become any easier to regulate just because one country decided it was legal). I'm not entirely sure that the laws against child pornography are doing "exponentially more harm than we are preventing", because you're implying that much of the damage associated with child pornography is because it is illegal. I disagree. The illegality of it means that people will keep it a secret, and distribution of it happens underground, but it has nothing to do with what the children involved experience psychologically and physically. Therefore legalising will not alleviate the psychological and physical damage done to children involved with child pornography.

The drug trade is not the same as the trade in child pornography. For a start, it's dubious to compare drugs and child pornography and assume that just because they're taboo and underground the same principles will apply. It is true that pedophile rings, like drug gangs, would become more open and less violent if they were legalised, but this still doesn't solve the problem that child pornography inherently involves physical and psychological abuse of children. [I have laid out in previous posts why I don't think that victimless child pornography exists on a scale to make it a worthwhile consideration.] What's more, legalisation of child pornography will hardly mean that people won't feel the need to produce new material just because it isn't being consumed like drugs, as you suggest. Child pornography is produced for two reasons - firstly, for distribution, but secondly, to satisfy the fetish and desire of the pedophiles involved in the actual creation of the material. For the second reason, legalisation (and, if you like, "flooding the market"), will not slow production in the slightest.

I largely agree with you about the relative guilt of those who consume child pornography - to be complete, let's just say those people who consume without paying, so they aren't directly stimulating the underground market. I conceded above that it was a weak point. Particularly given the second point I mentioned just above; whether or not child pornography is consumed people will still produce it to satisfy their own urges. Nonetheless it is not an invalid point, and there are "industrial" child pornography gurus who perhaps would be less zealous in their creation of such material if there wasn't such a market for it.

As regards laws on possession - one offence for every article possessed, you say? That sounds overly-harsh. Anyone serious pedophile may have hundreds of videos and thousands of photos on his or her hard drive; do they get a thousand convictions? Anyway, I've said my piece about scarcity and demand. Child abuse is not market-driven to a great enough extent for legalisation to have a positive effect.

We do indeed disagree here, and to me, it makes no sense. Allowing child pornography to spread, I think, encourages more people to try it themselves. In most cases I think it does not satisfy their urges, instead it stokes the fires, and turns what may have been a curiosity into an obsession, and leads them to do things they would not otherwise have done.

Analysis of child pornography is a pretty horrible job, but as the law currently stands a person merely has to ascertain "Yes, it's child pornography", declare it illegal, and convict the person who created it. Under your system people would have to deeply psychoanalyse the video material, which is really nasty, and as I have said above, not practical or trustworthy.

My comparison between the world of child pornography and adult pornography was more about volume than culture. Yes, there are lots of child porn "actors" (I'll call them victims). Yes, there are lots of child porn sites. The industry is vast and not policeable. And, again, as I have said above, child abuse is not sufficiently market-driven that you can hope to influence the whole sphere of activity just by influencing the market. Legalising drugs does not change the fact that people get addicted. Legalising child pornography does not change the fact that children get abused.

At least we're in agreement that sensationalism is not the answer. And we are, largely, in agreement that generally child pornography is bad. I'll concede that there is such a thing as "victimless" child pornography, though only with the caveat that it is a ridiculously small minority of the material that exists. But I fundamentally disagree that trying to influence the cp market through legalisation will make a bit of difference to the fundamental problem that children get abused and are psychologically and physically traumatised for life.

>>70400
This is all very reasonable. The balance that we have to try to strike is between making an example of sex offenders - to deter other people from doing likewise - and actually trying to rehabilitate them. Criminally retributive law must do three things.
Firstly, it must keep society safe from the dangerous person. This is most simply done by putting them in jail, but in the case of sex offenders it is also done by public exposure.
Secondly, it must punish the offender. This is to discourage them from doing it again, and to deter other people from doing likewise.
Thirdly, it must rehabilitate the offender. It is in the interests of human compassion to help them if they have a problem, and in the interests of society to rehabilitate them so that they aren't as dangerous any more.
Depending on the situation, each of the three factors may be more or less important. If the person is totally unrepentant, or insane, then clearly the first point is most important, followed by the second, and there's little hope for the third. But if someone has a psychological problem, then the first is important, but so is the third, and if the first is damaging the prospects of the third - public exposure does not help pedophiles to overcome their problems - then we must consider which is more important.

I was looking for a nice picture to put with this post; I found a nice Scootalove picture, but I thought that given the nature of discussion it was probably inappropriate ...

ok, too many walls of text to answer them all, but ill try to answer the ideas that are presented before me.

first of all, simply BEING a pedophile is already considered a crime: simply having evidence of viewing ANY kind of CP fake or not is enough to put you in jail and ruin your reputation for the rest of your life.
admitting being attracted to minors will, be met with extreme hostility, simply admitting to anyone who can't keep a secret will ruin your good name for good.
hell, adults having ROMANCE relations with a minor - even if he/she is already 17 it's already abuse and the man is instantly labeled as a pedophile, abuser and rapist

pedophiles are demonized and are constantly dehumanized.
you can't really deny any of that, it's a horrible situation and quite frankly, isn't very far to how homosexuals and interracial couples were treated not so long ago.

as for the child porn.

i will highly appreciate any links to articles that present evidence to childeren being scarred for life by being "abused"

speaking of which. regular porn can work the exact same way.

first of all, there is enough evidence that many porn actresses are being very mistreated and are forced to act happy and lewd.

second, there is no way to deny that the sex isn't forced on the adult as well. so according to this logic all of the porn should be banned not just CP.

thrid, do you know how hard it is for childeren to fake emotions? if they child does suffer, it's VERY apparent. and the site/uploader/waherever
always state that it was done with the child agreeing and willing.
and im not talking about 6- toddlers, im talking about children who know enough about the whole matter.
hence i even seen threads of childeren who somehow found these sites, offering to pose and whatnot, on their own sole behalf

from what i'v seen no one is holding their limbs or constricting them.

sure, there are always cases of abuse and assault but all i'm saying is that it's only a small portion of what really is going on.
i fact, many kids, including myself, become sexually active at a very young age -for me it was the age of 8.

so what i'm saying in the end is that pedophiles need to be accepted and confronted and not be shunned and banished.

CP is not as horrifying as you make it to be. most people who make it have no intetions scarring or abusing the child, i have found quite a few references honestly claiming they are 'making love'

if all of this would be under government control all could find peace.
but instead people prefer to just continue bashing and depicting pedophiles are hellspawn to be cleansed with fire....

edit: this one is long too, it doesn't looks so long in wordpad ._.

A decent portion of it is greentext and linebreaks though. I timed myself reading it at 48 seconds @ single line reading (my slowest reading technique), if that helps prepare oneself for reading this textwall.

>>70411
>Our disagreements mainly stem from differing assessments of the practicalities of whatever regulation and policing might be, and also differing experiences from living in different countries.

Yes and in that sense they may not even be a disagreement as a whole, as our perspectives on the way things are treated and how systems should treat instead of how they do for instance, are based on different instances. For instance I can't make passes at changes that need to happen in your system based completely on mine and vice versa.

>Without stereotyping the nation as a whole

Well I think you were pretty accurate in your assessment, granted I'm no law professor but I do have an interest in crime in general and how its treated. Perhaps some of a bias as well as i've done time before (not for this kind of stuff!! lol... all victimless all misdemeanor, but I digress)

>but public exposure and over-zealous persecution gives no opportunity to actually correct the problem as well as punish it. Especially if somebody is publicly outed as a sex-offender for life. How can anyone be expected to move on and try to cure themselves of their unhealthy desires if everywhere they go people assume the worst of them?

I feel this is ultimately a reiteration of the biggest flaw in the US justice system: no regard for rehabilitation. Perhaps on the back end, though, this is no flaw but an intentionality, as problems which perpetuate themselves are ultimately money sinks, especially ones as well sensationalized and demonized as pedophilia, or even just crime in general.

One of the most disheartening things I've read is that the state of california has, some odd years ago, decided that certain sex offenders are unfit to release into society... ever. Those persons serve their entire sentences, and are instead transferred to a new prison facility. They are imprisoned for life. I can understand that approch when the sentence and the crime dictate it, but if you get a 10 year sentence and serve 10 years, it strikes me as inhumane and ultimately an illuistration of the failure to even try to rehabilitate to extend that sentence indefinitely. People need to be given 'a chance' to right their wrongs or show they, after 10 years of imprisonment, have no intention of going back for another 10 years.

>Eh ... I just disagree with your points about regulating child pornography. Even digitally.

Perhaps I just havent explained well enough the system I have in mind or it isn't coming across clear enough. If we could sit down in person with pen and paper and make flow charts I could probably illuistrate it better, but even then you may disagree. Thats fine. Ultimately the goal of a digitally enhanced system, in my mind, is to assist humans in sorting material out and focusing on people involved rather than posessors, unless the two are the same. I may not have clearly communicated it but I really don't feel that 'consentual sex' between an adult and a child (beyond 4 yrs difference) counts as 'victimless', I think we're in agreement there actually. Ideally a digitally enhanced system does things like ID's if a piece of material is already something that exists from several years ago (and hence we know the person didn't victimize someone to obtain it if they obtained it recently) and to help ID who is in the material, or where the material comes from. But this thread is generally not about such a system so perhaps if we wanted to go into detail on how a system like that would work, this thread wasn't quite ideal for that in the first place.

>Imagine how much it would cost, to start with.

Here in the states, the way we've handled the issue, I see the current cost to society and the cost to incarcerate as far greater than this cost would be, and ideally it would lessen the cost of the former making it ultimately more cost effective. If our pedophile communities that live on outskirts of towns and cities require welfare as they can't utilize transportation or get jobs etc. that can be added to the incaraceration and prosecution cost. When you consider that we're constantly frying small fish over here and not addressing the bigger problem in a way that actually works to address it in general, I see the cost of such a system, properly designed, as entirely more efficient than what we're currently doing... but thats just an assumption that it would be. Perhaps the 'cost' is, on the back end, more profitable for those who are getting paid such as lawyers, politicians, and corrections officers and so the cost to society is moot in comparison, for those entities anyway.

>The illegality of it means that people will keep it a secret, and distribution of it happens underground, but it has nothing to do with what the children involved experience psychologically and physically. Therefore legalising will not alleviate the psychological and physical damage done to children involved with child pornography

To be fair, I don't think it being illegal helps the children much either, but wouldn't it be interesting if forcing the market underground generates more victims and makes it harder to address the problems of victimization? In other words, rather than stoking the fires, perhaps legalizing - at least non abuse forms perhaps - it reduces them? Thats part of the angle I'm working here.. further a 'more underground' and better hidden system that learns to run from vulnerable aspects in its system is much harder to regulate and hence for victims to be identified and addressed than one that is not so underground. Anyway here's a linky, if I were on a better machine I'd have better links but you may be able to follow this a bit for more info.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. and ultimately that is the goal I'm trying to work toward, is less victimization, and victimization includes people who posess a copy of a copy and have no ties to victimization etc. such as photoshopped material or even in some juristictions, written stories are considered child pornography... I'd consider prosecuting them to the full extent of the law victimization of them

http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html

>Under your system people would have to deeply psychoanalyse the video material, which is really nasty, and as I have said above, not practical or trustworthy.

We'd have to really sit down and try to hammer it out either in another thread or in person I think. With pen and paper and a flow chart I think it would be really easy to illuistrate, I think there has been some miscommunication or misunderstanding as the system I have in mind is not so much about psychoanalyzing but more about classifying types of material (sexting, child abuse material, willing 'porn' between two young teens without an adult filming it for instance) and identifying participants so they can be helped or prosecuted. Classifying not as in 'is this person under duress? Do they appear to be enjoying it?' but rather 'what is the likelyhood this is a sext?' 'Is this already in our catalouge from 5 years ago so we know it isn't original?' 'is it possible this is an attempt to frame someone by sending them material then calling the cops and the likelyhood the person it was emailed to is being framed and didn't request it is high?' type stuff. Ideally if it involves a grown adult and a minor it is already assumed to be a crime no matter the expression on people's faces or whatever.

>But I fundamentally disagree that trying to influence the cp market through legalisation will make a bit of difference to the fundamental problem that children get abused and are psychologically and physically traumatised for life.

We may have to agree to disagree here but here's the basic formula. When we quit frying the small fish, the 'end consumer' who doesn't have a direct role in victimization and doesnt monetarily contribute to production, we free up resources to go after the production end of the problem. When we largely work not on punishing Joe Schmoe for umpteen years for having a dozen pictures which he downloaded six months ago that have already been in circulation for several years which were created on a different continent than the one he's live on his entire life, we free up resources to go to that continent and bring production down and rescue the victim. Going after Joe Schmoe instead of the production end does not help that child at all.

And also, decriminalizing something is different than making it legal. When it is illegal there is still leverage the law can use and the material can still be confiscated and investigated, punishing the posessor is an option but not a requirement in decriminalization. Its a fine line to walk, decriminalization, but essentially we're saying that we don't need to make someone a criminal in certain circumstances when decriminalized, but when legalized we're saying 'hands off' more or less to the legal system. I advocate decriminalization of certain things (where no victim is generated) because in my mind we are making one a 'criminal' is generating yet one more victim.

Child abusers would still be criminalized here. Some 'pervert' who managed to obtain some sexts between two teens would not, ideally.

Last edited at Wed, Jan 23rd, 2013 09:31

>>70413
I'm sorry, this really is lazy of me to say ... but everything you say has been answered above. Admittedly it's buried in the textwalls, but they're textwalls for a reason, and the reason is that these are difficult issues where we have to be very precise.

So, my opinions on what you say are mostly dissenting, [though I do agree that actually being a pedophile in itself isn't as bad as sensationalist society makes out], but I'm not going to repeat myself here. See previous posts.

>>70414
At least it's not as titanic as previously! Bear with me, I'll give it a shufti.

>mrwI come back to /dis/ for the first time in months, and there's a thread where to OP seems to be engaging in apologetics for child pornography.

I'll agree that there's an unnecessary amount of hysteria and moral panic around pedophilia, but you can't. defend. child pornography.

Just... no.

>>70417
You came in at a bad time.

>>70414
I confess I agree with your point that the cost of implementing the system you suggest is worth it compared to the damage done by the current situation where sex offenders are ostracised and given no chance. But I don't see the link between decriminalisation/regulation and society's violent reaction to pedophiles. Legalisation and regulation would not solve that problem in my opinion, even if it were possible, which of course I don't think it is.

>Victimisation of pedophiles
I see where you're coming from. What we differ in is our valuation of different factors. In your opinion, it is worthwhile lifting the ban on child pornography and regulating it, if that will reduce the stigma and sensationalism surrounding the issue, and allow it to be more "above board". The trouble is, I don't agree with the conclusions that decriminalising it will change society's perceptions, and I still don't think it's worth legalising it, since legalising it sends the message that sex with children and the filming thereof is acceptable "so long as ...". As I set out in previous posts, I think the law must be clear and absolute, and in this case, I think the law must say: "Absolutely no sex with children under the age of X, no ifs, no buts". This arches over to include recorded material thereof, since any recording of said material was involved in an illegal activity, and possession of that material encourages such an activity, no matter how indirectly.

>Classification
Can we ascertain, in any video, that there are no adults present standing behind the camera? Can we ascertain that the children were not told to do what they are doing by an adult, even if the adult isn't present at all? Can we ascertain that the children are not seasoned "actors", and have been taught how to fake enjoyment? I say no, we can't. And even if we could, it would require close and detailed analysis of each video. It can still be coerced even if an adult isn't present; it can still be unacceptable even if it doesn't look like it.
There may be some instances where an adult isn't present and it's "acceptable" - that is, there really is no victim. There may be some instances where it was two kids and a camera, sending silly videos to each other. This is very difficult to ascertain sometimes, and impossible to guarantee, and at any rate, I think falls into a grey area too small and too controversial to be granted a legal exception.

As for frying the small fish, isn't that what you're trying to do by focussing on the market? That is still essentially affecting the end consumer. Why not forget the consumer entirely, accept that the consumer is not really the issue, and attack the two things that follow after that - firstly, society's perception of the consumer (that he or she is a monster), and secondly, that people are actually producing this material.
The logic is cumbersome. The fact that consumers of child pornography are not as demonic as society makes out is a far smaller problem, in my opinion, than the fact that child pornography is produced. Your method gives consumers too much credit. Let us not forget that these people aren't innocent little lambs drawn up for the slaughter by society against their will. It was their choice, they knew society's opinions, and nobody forced them. Legalising child pornography is basically a very short hand way to try and pretend that the stigma of pedophilia doesn't exist - "society has a sensationalist reaction to xyz, so to solve that we'll decriminalise it". Societal prejudice is harder to change than that. Society does not hate pedophiles because what they do and the videos they posses are illegal.
I would prioritise criminals who produce child pornography and their victims higher than those who consume it on the legal agenda. Decriminalising child pornography to try to lift the stigma of pedophilia and pedophiles is going the long way round to solving the minor problem. If the problem is that we're going after Joe Schmoe instead of the production, then forget Joe Schmoe. Focus on the production. We can do that without legalising the trade of what is implicitly illegal and damaging.

I see that you're trying to lift the stigma of monstrosity off people who really haven't committed any wrongs against children. I agree. But I disagree with your methodology - legalisation or decriminalisation. It won't change society's prejudiced hate of pedophiles one jot, and in my opinion it encourages production of child pornography, thus scoring a double own-goal.

>>70419
To be completely honest, I don't see legalizing or illegalizing as any sort of solution to any problem at all. Making things illegal is a cop-out to actually addressing the problem in my mind. No problems are solved, in general, by tweaking the law one way or another unless that problem is a problem caused by the law itself. More or less thats the problem I am focused on as I see the law here has generated problems around problems rather than rectified it. I don't really see the law as a problem-fix nor decriminalization as a problem-fix unless it is specifically a problem generated by the law.

>But I don't see the link between decriminalisation/regulation and society's violent reaction to pedophiles.

Thats because my proposal does not link the two. To be perfectly honest, I think its important to utilize society's reaction as a tool here in the concept of decriminalization. For instance, if a person is Joe Schmoe as mentioned, but simple posession not tied to direct victimization is decriminalized, society's stigma is the essential threat and tool that could be utilized to 'lean on' that consumer to get them to divulge where they obtained that material from or to garner their cooperation. I've actually left society's stigma out of the equation because, as you say, I don't see how it can be changed either. Unlike how you say, I don't think decriminalization will signal it is 'okay' to victimize children largely because the stigma of society still looms.

>In your opinion, it is worthwhile lifting the ban on child pornography and regulating it, if that will reduce the stigma and sensationalism surrounding the issue, and allow it to be more "above board".

Not quite. Lifting the criminalization requirement on victimless (sexting, 'older teens making material of themselves' for instance) should reduce victims both those victimized by law and those victimized by pedophiles/production. 'Child Abuse Material' to coin that term, is not included in this: it would still be both illegal and criminal in the event it suggests or depicts children being abused. The goal is a net reduction in victims... did you have a chance to check out the link I provided showing ties between loosening the law and children victimized? The theory there is that peodphiles utilize that material in place of utilizing a child physically. That seems like it could be true. My goal here is to reduce victims across the board, while refocusing on production. Society's viewpoint is actually not going to change, for the better or worse (either seeing pedophiles as more acceptable or seeing child abuse material as more acceptable), I don't see it doing so anyway. The law does not dictate society's viewpoint... at least it doesn't start to really until people are born 'into the law' I don't think.

>legalising it sends the message that sex with children and the filming thereof is acceptable "so long as ..."
>possession of that material encourages such an activity

Disagree here, as the link I provided above, there would probably have been a widespread increase in victimization in all of those places and cultures were that true: however the opposite seemed to happen. People utilized material in place of victims seems to have been the case in all of those instances. They didn't legalize or decriminalize sex with minors, they only did the material, and a corresponding drop in victimization crime appeared to happen. Ultimately we can disagree here but if that link I provided is true we can agree to disagree over it being true I suppose.

>I think the law must say: "Absolutely no sex with children under the age of X, no ifs, no buts".

If you're saying this for adults, yes I agree - but if you're saying children cannot with children, then I take issue with making sex between two people under the age of (17/18) illegal. To relate this to pornographic material, the law says no to physically attacking someone, but we have plenty of material that depicts that literally, and plenty of hollywood/actor type material that depicts it for the screen. I think you're inferring that all 'CP' is what I want to call 'child abuse material' and I want to separate those two concepts and categorize things properly into one or the other, e.g. sexting for 'CP' and an adult abusing a child for 'Child Abuse Material' if that helps. They are both wrong to an extent but criminalizing should be reserved for victimizing imho, and not for 'sexting' type stuff for instance.

>Can we ascertain, in any video, that there are no adults present standing behind the camera? Can we ascertain that the children were not told to do what they are doing by an adult, even if the adult isn't present at all? Can we ascertain that the children are not seasoned "actors", and have been taught how to fake enjoyment?
>There may be some instances where it was two kids and a camera, sending silly videos to each other. This is very difficult to ascertain sometimes, and impossible to guarantee, and at any rate, I think falls into a grey area too small and too controversial to be granted a legal exception.

If it cannot be determined, then it should not be assumed to be the worst case scenario by default, simply put. If a 15 year old takes a picture of her breasts to send to someone online, and we can't determine she was not coerced or forced by an adult, why then assume an adult coerces and forces her to do so? It seems to me this is a far more dangerous option, to assume this is evidence of a crime we cannot determine and are assuming with our imaginations, then act as if it were so. We are using our imaginations as criminal evidence of a sort.

>As for frying the small fish, isn't that what you're trying to do by focussing on the market? That is still essentially affecting the end consumer. Why not forget the consumer entirely, accept that the consumer is not really the issue, and attack the two things that follow after that - firstly, society's perception of the consumer (that he or she is a monster), and secondly, that people are actually producing this material.

Maybe there is a miscommunication here or misunderstanding, because thats what I'm trying to advocate, aside from changing society's perception which I think may be done indirectly by differentiating pornographic material of under 17/18's from child abuse material and by utilizing a digitally enahnced investigaive method into all CP/Child abuse material. Though I'm largely not addressing society's perception at all. In the states the end consumer is, more or less, the low hanging fruit easiest to pluck for the legal system and the production end is less the focus. The 'small fish' (an end consumer not involved in paying for original material or in production) are who is punished by and large in the states.

>The fact that consumers of child pornography are not as demonic as society makes out is a far smaller problem, in my opinion, than the fact that child pornography is produced.

Yes exactly, however change 'child pornography' to 'child abuse material', differentiating between victimless forms like sexting and the obvious rape of a minor/ a minor having sex with an adult (beyond +/- 4 years to be specific), at least thats the angle I'm working.

>Legalising child pornography is basically a very short hand way to try and pretend that the stigma of pedophilia doesn't exist - "society has a sensationalist reaction to xyz, so to solve that we'll decriminalise it".

Here is where we have a misunderstanding/miscommunication. None of this is the goal, maybe a hopeful side effect sometime down the road as people are 'born into' a different law system. The goal is to change the way the legal system handles pedophiles of this type, not to change society's viewpoint. The former is far more important than the latter, I actually am thinking society's demonization and viewpoint is important to keep around to an extent that it can be utilized as leverage to help identify the production end and leverage pedophiles into compliance or into giving up the production end. It isn't an attempt to solve society's viewpoint problem, its an attempt to redirect the legal system (particularly here in the states) towards victim generation and production of material, and away from people who do neither of those two.

You've got balls to admit this.

Respected.

>>70419
I have to agree here. Keeping stigma on sexual contact between adults and minors is a good thing.

No human society is sexually healthy that I have seen. We can't follow every child around and make sure that their person hood will be kept intact. But that is not to say that every form of CP is equal. I have a respect for legal systems in general and part of that respect is in ensuring that laws and consequences act on real harm to a real person somewhere in the chain of events.

I am uncomfortable with computer generated, or drawn, or written cp, but making such illegal is something I would consider insulting to include in law. Fake victims take attention from real victims and waste real resources. But real cp has a real child somewhere in the chain and I do not trust our society on this issue. I think the stigma on the images of real children engaging in sexual activity is a good thing.

******************
General comment.
It's all about the sex. Tons of people just can't handle it. Children and sex together? Rationality is out the window. That being said children need to be able to develop naturally and that does not include denying what inherent sexuality the have. I just hate the dumbing down of what we are and knee jerk reactions.

Yeah I realize that there is a conflict above. I defend it by pointing out that separating adults and children sexually is the goal because messing up a kid produces a ripple effect on the rest of society. Messing up a kid makes for deeper and more pervasive problems that affect more people. I include stifling a child's interest in their own sexuality as harmful as well.

Here are some useful google terms.
[childhood and sexual and abuse and harm and causation]
[childhood and sexual and activity and harm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse


For a legitimate controversy in this area there is always this situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

The ultimate picture of what biology is like here is less important to me than our current societies ability to deal with developing persons in this context.

>>70424

You've found the words that I was trying to say as well.

I wrote out a massively long post but then I deleted it all. I think I've been labouring under a bit of a misapprehension.

Let's try to simplify. You are unhappy with the unfair damage done to people who are found in possession of child pornography, who have not actively and deliberately contributed to the production of it, and are punished over zealously? I agree with you.

You say that you want to decriminalise to an extent the possession of certain types of that material, to reduce that damage, and to make it easier to get to the source of such material that breaks the law? To be honest, I probably agree with you on the principles of this, except for a few minor qualms about the practicality and enforceability of such a decision.

Alasdair MacIntyre was right. We begin arguing from similar but slightly different premises and consequently we cannot meet in the middle, and in the end it's just down to who can shout louder - or can obstinately reason and debate for longer. I think we have come with preconceived notions from two different cultures - both Western, both modern, but different enough, and certainly in this respect. So I'll concede that what you propose is probably a very good idea for you and your society, and is perhaps a little less practical and a little less necessary for mine (given that I come from a slightly more liberal and homogenous society).

What do you think? Sorry not to answer all your points, but it occurred to me that we'd probably go on at each other forever, since we've basically made no progress beyond a few basic points in the recent series of posts.

>>70475
Sounds ideal and accurate too!

>You are unhappy with the unfair damage done to people who are found in possession of child pornography, who have not actively and deliberately contributed to the production of it, and are punished over zealously?

This, in regards to pedophiles: yes. Also the premise that I see posession in those terms to be quite easy to abuse by people in all kinds of ways in order to abuse other people, and that it has happened before. Children are also impressionable and malleable to present false tesitmony, and manidtory sentencing means a cell phone from when you were a minor may contain what becomes (victimless) child pornography once you age to what society considers an adult. Largely I am addressing legal issues and issues which center around it because largely I see that as the problem over here. Like you say... it is impossible to police correctly... however I think your perspective leans you to say a blanket prohibition is ideal where mine leads me to to say general decriminalization and readjustment of the legal strategy is, which has different context for each of us.

It makes me wonder if the gentleman you mentioned that seemed to be such a benefactor who is currently under fire in the public eye over there, could possibly be being framed... and others like Michael Jackson. It has happened and been confirmed here in the states, such a setup, and its an incredibly effective way to tarnish a persons reputation or character or cause, even when the charges don't stick... and children can be programmed to give false testimony... and digital pictures are easy as hell to plant (send email, call police is how it seems to work here: or confiscate computer, add data, program some children and prosecute)... its largely our legal repercussions here which I am addressing, yes. I'm quite glad to understand that it doesn't seem you have the same degree of it there and can focus on the social aspect.

Honestly if we could sit down in person with flow charts and paper and pencil I could probably draw a more ideal system from the way things work there it sounds like!

>Sorry not to answer all your points, but it occurred to me that we'd probably go on at each other forever, since we've basically made no progress beyond a few basic points in the recent series of posts.

Actually I think we're making progress now. I meant to make a terms-proposal to differentiate between different types, as flutterguy gets at a little bit in his post >>70428 but it slipped my mind.

In any event, its an enlightening discussion about how conditions vary from country to country and consequently how the problems can be quite different. I wouldn't say we aren't getting anywhere so much as perhaps we're headed in a direction we didn't quite understand, based on mutual understanding of each other's societies and how the problems may differ. With that in mind it is kind of pointless for us to try to change each other's minds when the issues we're addressing are separate and not even entirely shared *lol* but I hope this only opens doors in the future instead of closes them.

>>70477
Unfortunately not. Google Jimmy Saville; he has been the subject of a serious and top-level investigation and has been revealed to have committed an astonishing number of offences over a very long period of time. He was protected by his celebrity - he was a national "good guy", he worked with hospitals, presented a kids' tv show, worked with kids' hospitals (naturally), collaborated with Prime Ministers, and raised massive amounts of money for good causes. This all gave him a shield against accusations anybody might have raised - it didn't help that the few such allegations that were raised were not taken seriously enough by the police.

Anyway, Jimmy Saville was a serial sex offender and child abuser, and his posthumous fall from grace is something I doubt anybody here would really dispute was justified.

>>70478
Ain't that a shame ._.

*reads some*

We had one 'Jerry Sandusky' I think, a college (gridiron) football team coach or something along those lines, who kind of mirrors this to some extent.

Part of me always tries to find a silver lining in everything, a positive aspect that comes out of every event or something, but stuff like this actually makes me pause for a split second before I find it.

>>70481

The protection in Sandusky's case was football, and rather ironically, not the charity he made through which he met/acquired most of his victims.

Football and a complete and utter lack of caring by university officials. Officials who KNEW about his activities.

So yeah, small wonder you have a hard time finding a silver lining to that one.

>>70483
My mind always gravitates towards a positive outcome in every situation, it isn't unlike how the tao te ching or in zen buddhism, water is described to always flow into the place of least resistance.

My mind tends to do the same... I just happen to notice when there is a pause before it gets there. I actually didn't have a hard time finding silver linings in stuff like this, I can find it anywhere and in anything just about, but still the pause is something unusual. A split second of not so concious searching.

Sometimes I just don't mention it though, because not every situation really benefits from 'well, at least' comments aimed at them. They can come across as rather insensitive in certain context, like these for instance.

I don't really know where this 'talent' comes from, I don't think I always had it, I used to be a bit cynical and the process was still somewhat there it just wasn't entirely positive. *shrug*

>>70484
Logical optimism? I think there's a lot to be said for it. It means you tend to see the bright side of situations and the good side of people, without being so naive and ignorant as to actually do stupid things and ignore real problems. It's good for personal happiness, and it's also an externally good feature that people gravitate towards - it's good for making and keeping friends.

But, logically, would you perhaps agree that there are certain bad things that can be cancelled out by good acts - so you can say "Well, at least..." and everything's all right - and certain things that cannot be cancelled out by good acts - so you must say that "In spite of all the good things X did, the fact still remains that..."?

Certainly the latter is the case for Jimmy Saville. Though few people would want to admit it, he did an awful lot of good for the nation's children, through charity work, hospital work, and raising awareness. But no one would try to say that cancelled out the bad things he did.

I like logical optimism. It's a good way to go about your life, and I try to exercise it as much as I can, although emotions and anger can get in the way if I'm not careful.

Last edited at Fri, Jan 25th, 2013 16:47

>>70488
>But, logically, would you perhaps agree that there are certain bad things that can be cancelled out by good acts - so you can say "Well, at least..." and everything's all right - and certain things that cannot be cancelled out by good acts - so you must say that "In spite of all the good things X did, the fact still remains that..."?

Sure, to an exent. I mean, a million bad things that happen can outweigh the one good thing that can be sifted from them, and vice versa.

I have a saying I used along these lines, that I've used for a very long time to downplay those 'when it rains, it pours' moments in my life or in the lives of others. It goes

"Worse things have happened to better people."

I don't really weight it as a cancelling out though, I don't think you can really 'cancel things out' persay, unless we're talking about larger ideals and things like societal growing pains. The idea that a good thing can cancel out a bad thing seems at least vaguely steeped in religious concepts of 'treasures in heaven' and such. I've never been one to hinge on such a concept. If there is a God I don't think he should hold back our rewards until after we die, and hence, I don't hinge on such an idea. I want to generate my good vibes and see the good vibes generated in this life, with these people, here... not some afterlife. Can worry about that when or if I get there lol, and if such rewards really are going to be given out, I'll let the afterlife decide rather than attempting to 'store up treasures in heaven' or some such.

I dunno... I just seem to always find the positive in anyone and anything, no matter how small. It helps to sometimes readjust one's perspective when its slipping into negativity, at least for me anyway. I got expelled from the public school system? Summer starts hella early woot. I got fired? Watch me leave with dignity, a smile, and well wishes. Going homeless? A lot less bills and societal 'responsibilities' to worry about. Et cetera.

In society though, it seems we like to emphasize that the ends justify the means... but we never reach the ends, ever notice that? It just doesn't cancel out in my mind, few things do: but that logical optimism can make for a decent c-c-c-c-c-combo breaker.

>>70495
Amen. Roses along the way and all that.

Logical optimism is largely what I take out of my position as an agnostic. I'm heavily influenced by Christian ideals - love thy neighbour and all that - but when applied in a secular environment, and when it's not about heaven and forgiveness, it takes on a form of tolerance, optimism and hope.

I decide to visit ponychan after several months, and site conduct is even more fucked up. You're allowed to defend and discuss CP, but not make an innocent joke reference to udders?

>>70251
Jesus what sort of f'ed up hugbox is this thread? OP people hate pedos because they're a danger to children. You've looked at child abuse images and convinced yourself the kids liked it. That strongly suggests if you had the opportunity you'd abuse a kid yourself and convince yourself they wanted it. If you truly are one of the "good ones" then get off the internet and go see a therapist or doctor before you scar some kid for life, seriously.

And all the people posting "SO BRAVE" should stop feeding his psychosis.

Last edited at Wed, Jan 30th, 2013 15:55

>>70631
>>70632
The purpose of this thread is the discussion of a very serious topic as the piece of objective reality that it is. This includes people with the attraction in question who do not act on such who might need to talk about it for purely human psychological reasons.

>>70631
>I decide to visit ponychan after several months, and site conduct is even more fucked up. You're allowed to defend and discuss CP, but not make an innocent joke reference to udders?

Your joke issue is off topic. If the defense of CP is objectively wrong you should be able argue such. If the discussion of CP is objectively wrong you should be able argue such.

>>70632
>Jesus what sort of f'ed up hugbox is this thread? OP people hate pedos because they're a danger to children. You've looked at child abuse images and convinced yourself the kids liked it. That strongly suggests if you had the opportunity you'd abuse a kid yourself and convince yourself they wanted it. If you truly are one of the "good ones" then get off the internet and go see a therapist or doctor before you scar some kid for life, seriously.
>And all the people posting "SO BRAVE" should stop feeding his psychosis.

You can condemn things you believe to be harmful, that's fine. But please be constructive. If the OP were to be convinced to avoid acting on his attraction because of the conversation here, that should be worthwhile from your point of view. Hostility makes humans put up mental defenses that make consideration of logic and rationality more difficult.

>>70632
Yeah, in the same way all guys who find women sexually attractive grab the first woman they can find and rape the hell out of her.

I'm sorry, but you present an atrocious argument and I'll give you an atrocious answer. Read the thread or take your prejudice elsewhere. This is not a hugbox, this is a place where we don't let emotions and prejudice cloud reasoned debate.

>>70633
Excuse me for having doubts that it is appropriate to discuss this topic on a site dedicated to a children's show. I have taken the initiative to create a thread on /meta/ to propose banning these kinds of topics from these boards.

>>70638
>dedicated
But it's not, else we wouldn't have /dis/. Not to mention even if it were, it would be dedicated to a children's show, not for children. As such, mature topics can be broached.

>>70638
Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? /dis/ is not pony related. This is a site for serious discussion.

Anyway, please stop posting here unless you're going to contribute to the discussion. We can continue in your /meta/ thread.

>>70638
>Excuse me for having doubts that it is appropriate to discuss this topic on a site dedicated to a children's show. I have taken the initiative to create a thread on /meta/ to propose banning these kinds of topics from these boards.

Doubts are fine, but they need to be accompanied by an argument to be useful on a discussion board. Right now you are expressing simple offense.

This topic has been eye-opening to me in ways that I could hardly even begin to describe, but I'll just say what is perhaps the greatest revelation for me...

I cannot love and tolerate you.
Not in the true sense of such a statement at least.

I consider myself a very open-minded individual, attempting to embrace this show's ideals to the fullest. Hence why I dove headlong into it and grew so engrossed in it.

But if you're a pedophile, even just in the sense of being attracted to underage girls, I cannot love and/or tolerate you. I find it morally disgraceful and reprehensible, and I would not hesitate to report you to the proper authorities and see you incarcerated if I had the power to do so, OP. This is where I'm tempted to say: "I'm sorry" but I cannot do so, for the words would be hollow and meaningless. And I would have to put on the Liarjack face.

Perhaps due to both nature and nurture; I do not see my stance on this changing. Ever. I will always find pedophiles, regardless whether or not they act on such impulses: unforgivable. No excuses. Is it closed-minded of me?

You know what; damn right it is.
But I cannot deny what I think and feel. And I must thank you for leading me to this conclusion.

Good luck, short eyes. If you ever do get jailed, which frankly I hope you do- even the prisoners there think of you as the lowest of the low; you won't stand a chance.

That is a great movie by the way, I'd recommend it.

Last edited at Thu, Jan 31st, 2013 02:37

>>70656
You're out of line, Anon. Go reread the site's etiquette rules

>>70656
>But I cannot deny what I think and feel.

Ah, but you can CHANGE what you think and feel.

Whether or not want to change is up to you. The only think keeping you from NOT hoping he gets sent to jail for being a pedophile is yourself.

Could you perhaps explain your feelings?
How do you feel about cartoon CP?
People who get off to cartoon CP?

Why exactly do you want to see him jailed?
Does seeing those who you deem morally reprehensible punished bring you joy?
Would you want to see OP jailed even if he did nothing wrong?

While I would personally suggest rethinking your stance, the only one who can really do that is you. As such, I really would like more insight on why exactly to feel the way you do.

Also, the picture you chose makes your post look sadistic. I find that kind of funny.

>>70658

>>70662
I think it's because his post was a little bit of a personal attack. He essentially said "I would send you to jail if I could and hope someone sends you to jail." He also called the OP "short eyes".

Personally, I wouldn't think it warrants a ban. He was honest about his feelings and was humble about it, even if his opinion was a bit violent.

>>70663
I'm not even going to give that warning, i wish more people posted like that.

Etiquette =/= Being nice.

Alright anon I'll try to be as real as I can with you here. I also know a 'pedophile' but he's into art of little girls and not the actual thing. I can say that from knowing him, I believe you when you say you are born with it. He is actually quite sweet and wouldn't act on his feelings.

Anywho, let me tell you about my experience being a 'child.' Now see, when I was going through puberty I was.. quite.. how should I put this.. horny. Alright with that being said, I badly I wanted to act on these feelings. I mean soooo bad. Before puberty I had no concept at all of what sex was in the least. If I had acted upon these feelings, I would have scarred myself for life upon finding I was asexual after puberty. I can't remember when it was over, maybe 14 or 15. So I believe once the hormones of puberty die down, the 'child's' mind has grown ~sexually~, nothing more. Nowadays I would be perfectly comfortable dying a virgin. And with THAT being said, I have a friend who went through puberty early and chose to become sexual early. That is just something she'll have to deal with when she gets older. If we're talking about pre-puberty, I'm still not going to say you're sick, but I just.. Don't agree with you that there isn't an age that we can make an informed choice on the matter.

>>70664

Yeah, this. If I were to judge the guy's character, I'd say he's an awful person. He's being very civil about things, though, and we're on /dis/, where you should really be free to state opinions like that in a civil manner.

>>70664

"You won't stand a chance" still implies he condones OP being murdered, or raped, by other prisoners. Should he ever end up in prison. And that it's what he's hoping for.

Does he have a right to say OP is a horrible person? Of course he does. But does that give him or anyone else the right to say he deserves to be raped and murdered in prison? Do we want rape and murder to be condoned on this website?

>>70670

And yes, that goes as much for the anon that wishes rape on OP, as it does for OP trying to excuse child porn. I'm not a hypocrite.

>>70656

***GENERAL STATEMENT***
This post is in many ways the ideal for what anyone discussing serious topics can hope for. The poster is willing to be blunt, honest and support their positions. That is a thing I am grateful for when I encounter it because in a general sense they are the crucible for what you believe. Is what you believe correct? We are only able to check ourselves to a certain extent because unconscious bias is a thing that unfortunately is better pointed out by others. That is not to say that you can't identify biases in yourself. You can, it is just harder and usually a mistake comes along with it. Mistakes that you end up having to think about for a long time on some occasions.

I appreciate the honesty, we should always be honest about personal bias because it helps us understand each other. I also understand the source of the passion. I have felt similarly about politicians who I see as causing great harm. But that is more like hoping for a natural disaster in my case because I prefer to refrain from wishing one of my fellow to murder another. I don't know if the act of murder changes a person like popular culture sometimes says, but I don't like the odds.

That being said,

***Response***
>But if you're a pedophile, even just in the sense of being attracted to underage girls, I cannot love and/or tolerate you. I find it morally disgraceful and reprehensible...

This depends on the nature of Pedophilia and Child Abuse. If it ends up being something that people do not ask for and can not change, morality does not apply to the attraction in an objective sense. Morality requires a choice. Morality is involved in how the person with the attraction deals with it, and how the person who finds the attraction objectively abhorrent deals with it. There is justice and there are witch hunts.

To be reprehensible one must have acted on the attraction. To be disgraceful one must have fallen from grace. Those are arguments to be defended. I feel sorry for pedophiles. I want threads like this to exist so that they can see the objective arguments and facts that demonstrate the harm that their attraction can cause. It's far better than driving them into hiding where someone may act on such attraction while living a desperate life.

>>70670
>>70671

I think it's fairly obvious that when people want someone in jail he wants them to suffer a bit, but raped and/or murdered is a stretch. Like I said, his position is inane and zealous, but it is a position, and with moral issues like this you can't really call a position wrong.

My personal response to him, and to the "love and tolerance" mantra in general, is that not only do I not expect absolute tolerance, but I wouldn't even suggest it. Pedophilia is okay with me so long as it isn't acted on and I won't condemn someone unless I have significant reason to believe they'll actually do something. But that isn't to say that everything that happens should be tolerated.

If he wants to take a stance that anyone with pedophillic thoughts should be executed, then I will let him. It's not easy to convince someone otherwise, and ostracizing them from the community is only going to make those feelings stronger. Much as I won't condemn the pedophile until they act, I will not condemn the murderer until they act. And I have no reason to believe said anon is actually going to murder the OP. His ranting is quite ignorable.

>>70675
Amen.

I think one of the biggest indicators of which type of post is more acceptable and more appropriate in this forum is which post generated a lengthy and thoughtful thread, and which post sparked a whole load of arguing and irritation.

All considering its a tough issue with extreme amounts of sensationalism, media hype, and political harping around it. Responses that reflect this are to be expected. Im actually surprised and pleased we have mostly managed to avoid that in general - see huffpo`s crime section comments for plenty of example.

>>70676
The problem with pedophilia is that there is often malicious intent associated with it,it can be treated as a means to destroy an inconvenient child.

Where society overreacts is when it tells teenagers or very young adults that they are pedophiles,because they are attracted to people younger then themselves.

Again though actual pedophiles will organize,make friends with people who can protect them and keep an eye on the children they are pursuing.

>>70662
>>70663
>>70664

>Don't make unnecessary drama
>Be polite . . . and do not insult others
>Judge people based on what they do or say, not who they are

I saw the post, especially the bit at the end, as borderline breaking the above site rules, so I erred on the side of reporting. I have no issue with that poster voicing their opinion, just the vitriolic way they chose to do so. Since the mods disagree, I will drop it.

>>70690

Sometimes its best just to flag things. Agree or not, its up to the mods whom they themselves can even bend or break rules if they want, but I think you did the right thing by bringing attention to it. Sometimes just a mod popping in is all that is needed, but in any event yeah... better to flag things with a report and be on the safe side in my opinion. Rules are always subject to interpretation, and my personal opinion is that moderation is often a totalitarian function at its core, no matter how much people think they have a right to XYZ on the internet. People can disagree with mod functions or whatever, but at the end of the day its up to them to make the call, be it just or unjust. I thought about flagging as well to be honest, then saw a mod had popped in so... function achieved!

and stuff

>>70691
>>70690
This mod does not mind people reporting things just in case. But I will ask the other mods about the general topic of wishing death on people they don't like in mod chat when I get home. I can admit to being a bit conflicted about this one.

Oh god why. this thread..omg. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA PEDO

>>70777
Because thanks to people who make CMC porn we will be continually confronted with this topic. People with this attraction and have not acted on it exist in society. This thread is an opportunity to be confronted with the reasons for why pedophilia is considered a problem.

If you read the thread you will see that this is so.

Some people are born wanting to kill others. Doesn't make it acceptable.

Get psychological help ped0's.

/thread

>>70785
>Ignores the entire thread
>Expresses generic opinion a small rodent could have come up with
>Proudly decides "I have solved the thread and shown them who's boss"
>/thread

This is everything wrong with people not reading the rules of /dis/. It's just common courtesy to know what kind of board you're posting on before you go and make an idiotic post like that.

PLEASE read the stickied posts, observe that this board is called /Discussion/, and read the thread before you post.

>>70789
That's the only post on that IP, so I'm pretty sure he's just trolling, possibly through a proxy. It might be best to just ignore him.

The problem with child porn is that the kids might not have a problem with being taken pictures of naked as a 9-year-old, but children often don't have a concept of concequences. When they're 20 I'll bet you 1000 bucks they won't be happy about the pictures floating around on the internet.

>>70806
to add to it, there is the obvious focus of whether sex with kids are okay and stuff. I mean, whether consent is enough to allow.

But I would also have a side issue that their sexual exploits are recorded and sent out for others to jerk it to.
Setting kids up for a career in porn teaching them it's good to have sex while the world is watching, on itself is pretty effed up.
Leave porn for people who are old enough to make the decision on what to do with their lives.

>>70806

I said this earlier in the thread before I stopped following it, but people who do the same thing when they're 20 often regret it when they're 30 or 40. We've set the age at 18, but people don't suddenly become more aware of consequences at any age whatsoever.

And while it might be regrettable, how likely are the pictures to actually cause harm at any age? I don't think we should enact laws to prevent things people might regret. Laws should be in place to prevent actual harm.

Should I put a disclaimer on top of the thread or something? Some people keep reacting to the OP and not taking the time to see responses include reasoned examples of why pedophilia is a thing to be opposed. To me its a smaller form of the witch-hunt mentality. Don't take the time to show why something is bad, just make it go away.

>>70821
"Since this is a controversial topic, please take the time to see what people have previously posted"? Something like that.

Actually I'm not sure if the thread is progressing any more. It's a while since anything meaningful and fresh was contributed. We had a good discussion and largely seem to have degenerated into occasional posts from opinionated anons who happen to see the thread and resurrect it.

>>70816
But clamping down on pictures and picture distribution is a step closer to clamping down on the people who produce them.

Anyway, all this has been previously discussed in epic length earlier in the thread. See my above most recent post.

>>70825
>>70826

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the thread is going in circles at this point. There isn't anything left to contribute in most cases as we've covered everything already.

I think pedophilia and sexualization of children in general is gross and kinda creepy myself, but I also think that the way the English-speaking world has gotten it into their heads that any appearance of a nude human being under the age of 12 or 13 is child pornography, automatically branding the creator a pedophile (as opposed to someone who just, y'know, wants to show a little kid doing something little kids often do), is absolutely rigoddamndiculous.

Erm.... I was with you until you said you'd visited the darknet, because I have a small problem with child pornagraphy.

Even if a child agree's to be in the porn, they might not fully understand the implications of it, they might have future scarring one can't predict at the time, and most importantly; they likely won't get paid for their contribution. Inbetween the mental torture possibilities and the lack of payment I don't think real pictures of children should ever be sold in an erotic manner.

However. Animations, drawings, even sketches, I have no problem with. I find it to be rude that we don't give a pedophile the right to even have a drawing of a child without wanting to throw them in jail. In the case of a drawing, there is no possibility for abuse, anguish, mental abuse, or lack of repayment, and yet we still attack you for it.

>>70656
>But if you're a pedophile, even just in the sense of being attracted to underage girls, I cannot love and/or tolerate you. I find it morally disgraceful and reprehensible, and I would not hesitate to report you to the proper authorities and see you incarcerated if I had the power to do so, OP. This is where I'm tempted to say: "I'm sorry" but I cannot do so, for the words would be hollow and meaningless. And I would have to put on the Liarjack face.

Hey. >>70400 here. I guess that, if you knew who I was, you'd hate me (though you wouldn't be able to have me incarcerated since, you know, I've never broken any laws. But let's set that aside.)

I totally understand your feelings. In fact, I hate myself for my attraction, even though I know it's not voluntary. But I am curious: would you genuinely hate someone who has an involuntary attraction to young girls (or boys, as the case may be) and never acts on it for moral reasons? Is that fair? If you have a selfish, evil urge, that doesn't mean you'll definitely act on it, even if it's of a sexual nature. Humans might be animals, but we're higher animals with the ability to reason and control ourselves. Some of us are, anyway.

Short disclaimer here. As I said before, I think underage pornography can generally be considered an extension of abuse. I also think that looking up that sort of material is "acting on" pedophilic urges, if even only in an indirect way.

I don't need your love or tolerance or any of that; I'm just curious about how you feel. I don't believe in love anyway - not for myself, at least. It seems I was born to simply dedicate myself to my work. It's either that or go and hang myself. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would tell me to do just that. Might not be a bad idea, really, but it would upset my family.

You know I can sympathize in a way. You can't help who or what you are attracted to, and I can say that being attracted to children does not mean you necessarily mean you are a rapist, etc. However it's pretty easy to see why people would be so disgusted by them: being attracted and in many/some cases harming children is obviously a big no-no in society for several reasons. Though if pedophiles are potentially giving in to temptation it'd be nice if society were a bit more supportive of them seeking help from psychiatrists, etc.

However...

>child porn is treate the exact same way

Fuck you.

why

>>70940

This,
>>70779

>>70942

Here, I'll try to ask a new question.

Do the CMC count as underage? Would pornography of the CMC count as pedophilia? It seems obvious they're children, but they aren't human children. Being attracted to cartoon pony children seems completely separate from being attracted to human children. Furthermore, we don't really know of any laws regarding sex with minors in Equestria, or really any laws involving minors or age limits whatsoever. [/children'sshowoveranalysis]

Just some thoughts I had here.

>>70951
As someone who has clopped to the CMC, that's pretty much the justification I have in my head.
I try not to relate them to real children, as I don't find lolicon very attractive and thinking of having relations with a real child is just a boner kill.

For me, the attraction stems more from:
-Who they are.
-What they look like.
-And the fact that it is so strange.

I don't think pedophilia is the only reason why someone would be attracted to the CMC. From what I've seen, their are way more people who clop to the CMC then there are pedophiles in the fandom.

(Pedophile meaning being sexually attracted to and wanting to have sex with real children)

There is a similar effect with Lolicon. Quite a few people who enjoy lolicon have actually stated that they enjoy it for the small, innocent, portrayal of the children and are not in any way attracted to children in real life.

I hope all peados get gassed. fucking scum

>>70951
>>70960

With lolicon I'd be more inclined to say that that is far closer to actual pedophilia; given that the representation is of human children in sexual acts. Surely anyone reading / browsing art of human children engaging in sexual acts who says that they aren't sexually interested in children is lying or totally deluding themselves.

The CMC are a bit different. I think that people could find a pedophilic element in clopping to CMC - but then again, you could argue that calling CMC porn pedophilic makes as much sense as calling pony porn bestiality.

It seems to be in its own genre. Fantasy. It's loosely related to humans because of their humanised faces, but it's not too hard to detatch from humans. It's also related to human children, but I think it isn't actually too hard to disconnect them from that concept, and just think of them as cuter versions of the grown up ponies. I mean, they look almost exactly the same other than the fact that they look a bit smaller - in the show, that is. Various different pony artists (and I have NO intention of going to check whether this is true or not) may give them more anatomical differences, given they're younger, but that's down to each individual artist and each individual clopper.

Does clopping to CMC make you a pedophile? I think not necessarily. It could be symptomatic of pedophilia, but I think it would also be possible with no interest in human children to be aroused by CMC clop-art as well. Of course, I wouldn't touch any pony porn with a 50 foot barge pole, but that's just my opinion.

>>70962
>Surely anyone reading / browsing art of human children engaging in sexual acts who says that they aren't sexually interested in children is lying or totally deluding themselves.

Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Because it's art, lolicon can stray away from realistic children in real life. The elements that are attractive to one person, may not be attractive to the pedophile. Even if they both enjoy the same image/comic.

There is a similar situation I've noticed with gay furry porn. I have seen a lot of guys say that they are attracted to it, but at the same time say that they have no interest in having sexual relations with another man.

>>70951
>Do the CMC count as underage? Would pornography of the CMC count as pedophilia? It seems obvious they're children, but they aren't human children. Being attracted to cartoon pony children seems completely separate from being attracted to human children.

Technically you are correct that the CMC/Ponies are non-humans. But we have to remember what their role in the series is. They are meant to be individuals that that the main target audience can identify with. They are "physically/mentally immature" (no cutie marks, similar lack of consent issues as children). They are effectively in the 5-11 year-old range or so. The ponies themselves are deliberately humanized characters that are meant to be identified with and thus are deliberately human-like enough to make this worrisome when it comes to creating an appetite for this kind of content in an otherwise impressionable person.
Note that I am not wearing my neurobiology hat for that last one. I don't know how people become pedophiles so I don't know what the nature/nurture risk factors really are. But because of the role the CMC play the connection to pre-pubescent children is too easy to make thought individual morality/impressionability matters.


>Furthermore, we don't really know of any laws regarding sex with minors in Equestria, or really any laws involving minors or age limits whatsoever. [/children'sshowoveranalysis]
Its an interesting side issue though. Maybe someone can make a thread where we try to infer the sexual morals of Equestria through the structures we see.

>Just some thoughts I had here.
Good ones too.

>>70960
I do agree that there will be individual differences in how people can make connections. But I don't think its too much of a stretch to think that some people can get curious about real CP from CMCP and that could lead to an appetite.

>>70961
>I hope all peados get gassed. fucking scum


*********General Comment*****************
OK, I'm going to ask that this kind of thing stop. There is a difference between the attraction and the action. Wanting to see people who commit no crimes dead is not something that is within site rules.

If anyone wants to describe a position or a behavior as terrible that is one thing. It does not tar the entire person and is thus something that can be discussed in objective terms that facilitate arguments.

But describing an entire person as worthy of death or terrible because of features that they have makes things too personal and confrontational which kills discussion.

Objective even passionate discussion of features/positions=OK

Wishing death/being insulting to a whole person = Not OK

I'll start a discussion with the other mods today to get this clarified.

>>70961
Yeah thanks for your contribution to the thread. You really moved the discussion along.

This is my kind of thread

Last edited at Thu, Feb 7th, 2013 10:59

>most, if not all the pics i saw were done by the will of the child. they all looked happy and cheerful, none looked like they suffer.

I have a friend who is a pedophile and I had a similar discussion with him a few weeks ago.

His argument was that "Kids are not stupid. Kids can consent to the act perfectly fine."

Now, mind you, I do not have a problem at all with people who are pedophiles so long as they don't act on it. But using the above as a justification for saying that there's nothing wrong with the act is completely flawed.

How? It's very simple. Think of a little kid whom you offer a lollipop to. Said kid has no idea what a lollipop is, but curiosity wins and the kid agrees to take the offer of the lollipop. A kid has just agreed to something out of curiosity rather than actual understanding.
Now, of course this is a far-stretch from the act of pedophilia itself, but just think about the analogy for a second. Kids never know what the act of sex is, and if for some twisted reason they do, they do not fully comprehend it nor understand the implications and consequences it brings with itself. A kid is simply not mature enough to have such understanding of the matter.

So this doesn't matter because the kid still consents to it out of curiosity? No. Why do you think there's so many campaigns out there that try to teach teenagers about sexuality and precautions about it? People need to get a grasp of what a sexual act brings with it before they jump on it. And that includes anything that may affect the kid's mentality, which of course is something you shouldn't be playing with at all.

You can say that a kid can "consent" to an act all you want, but the moment you prove that a kid actually understands the implications of a sexual act, I will swallow my own words and go dig myself a hole to live there.

>>70980
Actually I like discussions that take us to the edge of what is comfortable. I find that they are where we learn a lot of the most interesting things.

The trick is keeping things constructive...

>>70967

>They are "physically/mentally immature" (no cutie marks, similar lack of consent issues as children). They are effectively in the 5-11 year-old range or so. The ponies themselves are deliberately humanized characters that are meant to be identified with and thus are deliberately human-like enough to make this worrisome when it comes to creating an appetite for this kind of content in an otherwise impressionable person.

I suppose it depends on what attracts pedophiles to children in the first place. If they're attracted to the child's immaturity or vulnerability, then that could easily carry over to human children. If they're attracted to the body, though, then it doesn't really carry over at all.

>>70982

I'm pretty sure he's taking a jab at Mandopony there, due to the wild and unfounded accusations that Mando's a pedophile.

Argh, this whole thread. I read the first quarter or so of posts, and I must agree, OP, with the most of them - liking children is not in itself vile but acting upon it is. It's like bestiality - wanting to commit sexual acts with a horse in itself is not wrong, but the actual act of doing so is highly frowned upon, if not illegal. I personally have seen things on the internet that are illegal (as I'm sure we all have) and found certain things disgusting and certain things interesting but none of these things are things I will act upon. It's all about controlling it

>>70989

>I personally have seen things on the internet that are illegal (as I'm sure we all have) and found certain things disgusting and certain things interesting

What a strange way to word something like that.


Now my imagination runs wild...

>>70990
Its unfortunately true. I go to torland myself on occasion and you can run into things you don't want to see on "safe" sites. People can also package things fraudulently like videos and such. Even on the regular internet you would be surprised at how bold trolls can be. It happens.

Also the law is different in one place versus another. State by state in the US simply having animal movies is not illegal in many places but participating can get you arrested.

Such might not be illegal in their country either. There are some places where CP is not against the law.

I'm a law nerd as well and I follow some weird blogs.

>>70992
Out of interest, what is the specific crime? Cruelty to animals?

Ok, saw this mentioned on /meta/ and it's pretty sad to see it's true (the locking of the thread also tells a lot about the kind of freedom of speech that's enforced). Thanks for for justifying all the accusations of all bronies being pedophiles, btw, though anyway at this point, I wouldn't doubt it's largely true.

First off, even in consensual situations as OP mentioned, you think kids would wanna go around having sex if they weren't presented the option? They're supposed to have the time to enjoy more innocent things while their bodies aren't even -developed- for the task.

As for the ones defending CMC porn as not being pedophilic, it's bullshit and you know it. They talk like kids (they're also played by kid actors, but you knew that), they act like kids, have kids' concerns, and their proportions show them clearly as younger in relation to the adult ponies.
And not surprisingly, authors of foal porn pics often draw rape too, which tells you something (there's a perfect example of said creeps on /art/).

Also, if you wanted to defend yourself as a harmless pedophile, it could have been less of a problem, but defending child porn in itself speaks more than enough against you.

>>70992

True, I understood that. I'm just wondering what is illegal that he nevertheless finds interesting lol.

>>70993
From what I remember it changes from state to state. There is actually a Wikipedia page discussing the issue. That site is going to have a page for everything that exists eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law
>"Laws are determined at the state level. Many U.S. states[52] explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "sodomy" or "unnatural crime against nature"). Others do not."

It farther mentions that when there is no specific law animal abuse statutes are used.

>>70994
>(the locking of the thread also tells a lot about the kind of freedom of speech that's enforced)
The reason the thread was locked was because the OP misrepresented the posts they were complaining about. This justifiably insulted several /dis/ posters and the conversation just went downhill from there.

The general subject, arguing that certain subjects should not be discussed on Ponychan, is a valid subject for discussion but not in a drama-inducing manner.

There are some people in this world and on this board who have probably never written the words "In my opinion" or "I think" in their entire lives.

>>70994
>As for the ones defending CMC porn as not being pedophilic, it's bullshit and you know it.
It is and it isn't. Why do you think CMC porn isn't something people could go to prison to? Its ambiguity protects it because it is not pedophilic porn per se. That same ambiguity can easily apply to why some people can enjoy it in the first place. You see my point?

>And not surprisingly, authors of foal porn pics often draw rape too, which tells you something (there's a perfect example of said creeps on /art/).
Oh ok, so we're generalizing now. It's pretty easy to get away with this kind of stuff. Your argument has no validity here if you're going to generalize.

I'm not even defending actual child porn nor am I a pedophile, but in my opinion some of your ideas are a little off of aim.

>>70994
>As for the ones defending CMC porn as not being pedophilic, it's bullshit and you know it.

Right, I think this is an example of The Worst Argument in the World. We're talking about drawings. Drawings may be "pedophilic porn" in the technical sense of the words, but they are highly atypical in that they entirely avoid the reason why we think pedophilic porn is bad. Namely that children are harmed through its production and purchase. So this is basically a dishonest accusation.

http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html

If someone sitting around in their bedroom wants to look at pornographic drawings of X, doesn't much matter what X is, that rates about a 0.0 on my is-any-of-my-business-0-meter. I'm not going to call them 'creeps' either. Draw whatever the heck you want. As long as I don't have to look at it, it's none of my business and I'm happy for you.

>>70251

Let's get hypothetical there,let say a pedophile came over from Norway and had an attachment towards children.He can barely mumble in English and the only thing that is noticeable,is his "attachment" to children.

Now some people ,who think that is cute,start calling him Santa Claus in part because of his cultural background.

Now say he runs into money problem and needs an "advance" from his friend Karen,who happens to be a sort of Shepherd of lost souls.

Now she can't give him,his "advance" but she makes him promise to stop touching little girls.Maybe because Karen "knew" someone like him,because she was younger. and maybe because she thinks it will be cleaner if its her who does the fiddling.

It turns into a contract between 2 mentally ill individuals,dickering over children,both of whom were quite possibly messed with when they were much younger.

It is when it gets organized,that it gets much much worse,looking at pictures of children for whatever reason is one thing.I don't approve of searching the web for kiddie porn but it is not a proof of any kind of intent beyond psychological problems........it doesn't mean much.

Real life pedophiles,will organize and makes friends-then try to make ends meet.At times,they might be compared to creatures of Folklore or priests....for different reasons.They will mutilate children to the point of killing them mentally or physically,they will destroy any chance of that child living a normal life.

They are a serious problem,the crap posted on the net.....is sort of different.Fantasies that go off the deep end,involvement of children in something inappropriate.

There is rarely any kind of the real malice,lunacy and often outright fear that dominate the lives of "active" pedophiles.

>>70951
On one end, i wouldn't really separate CMC R34 from loli or other drawn children.
Exempt from maybe, of course, making the CMC be adults.

Though i don't think people who enjoy CMC porn are necessarily attracted to human children most.

>>70983
Mind you, even the CMC are modelled after children. It's not a 100% match, but it's close enough.

>>70989
A point though is what constitutes as acting upon it. Does that only happens when one has sex with a kid without consent? Or is downloading Child porn enough?

>>70251
I have't read the thread so please don't lynch me if I'm repetitive. In cases like similar to yours, I think I would keep it to drawings or paintings, something other than photographs. Children don't have a concept to consequence so clopping to them is wrong. On the other hand children in paintings and the like aren't real people so that acceptable, at least, in my view.
No disrespect, I myself have a mind control fetish, though almost all sex that would come from that would be rape. So I keep to manga, comics, erotic novels and the like.

Last edited at Sat, Feb 9th, 2013 06:38

*sigh* and so the "logic" continues. i knew as soon as people started buying this whole "born gay" thing that this is where it was headed. this whole "its not my decision and therefore its not my fault therefore i should not be accosted for it, therefore it should be acceptable" line of thought has no end. BUT i dont judge you OP, we all have our own problems and sexual struggles, i certainly have mine. but thats the thing, we CAN change ourselves and we do have a choice, however difficult it may be to change ourselves, we have the responsibility to mold ourselves into the best people we can be. thats my ten cents though. wish you the best. :)

>>71079
>*sigh* and so the "logic" continues. i knew as soon as people started buying this whole "born gay" thing that this is where it was headed.

Based on what? If the reality you appear to be presenting existed Gay being something that is not present from birth, pedophiles could still try to use the homosexual community to gain legitimacy. It makes no difference either way and we can still reject them based on the issue of consent. Nothing changes so this makes no sense.

>this whole "its not my decision and therefore its not my fault therefore i should not be accosted for it, therefore it should be acceptable" line of thought has no end.

Sure it does. With homosexuals they get to live their lives with the partners of their choice because it does no real harm to you. We punish pedophiles who act on their attraction, and help the ones that want help to suppress their attraction if they need it. We leave them alone if they do not need our help.

This is not hard.

>BUT i dont judge you OP, we all have our own problems and sexual struggles, i certainly have mine. but thats the thing, we CAN change ourselves and we do have a choice, however difficult it may be to change ourselves, we have the responsibility to mold ourselves into the best people we can be. thats my ten cents though. wish you the best. :)

Yes you do judge OP. You just did and you did not even have to pretend otherwise. Everyone is allowed to judge people and behavior. What matters is can you back the judgements up, and that you don't do anything based on judgements without the consent of society. Our laws.

Last edited at Sat, Feb 9th, 2013 18:04

>>71079
We can change what affects our nether regions? How? Just answer this Anon, did you choose what you like to do, your favorite color? What about your sexual orientation?
I don't think that's a choice and thus I can't fault someone for thinking it. Like I said if you have a... unfulfillable fetish (weather for practical or moral reasons), just keep it to art and the like. That's what I do.

>>71079
The point of this thread, the thing that logic has reasoned out of it, is this: "Being a Pedophile itself is not a crime, since it is not a choice. What is criminal and morally wrong is acting on those desires. What is the best response is working to suppress those desires, and what is the minimum acceptable response is refusing to act on those desires." What we're largely discussing and what we haven't really decided on is whether browsing images and videos of child pornography constitutes "acting on those desires". So, mostly, posts which say "Pedophilia is wrong" or "Pedophilia is fine" are superfluous to this discussion and should start their own thread.

Flutterguy, if you wanted to put a disclaimer at the top of this thread, I'd suggest that as a draft.

Last edited at Sun, Feb 10th, 2013 08:58

this thread...

>>71079
>>71080
>>71095

I'd suggest checking out this thread:
>>70891

It offers a lot of interesting insight on the biology and neurology behind sexuality.

>>71099
Interesting. Its a good start but I think that OP was serious about their point being that they did not want pedophiles demonized anymore. I'm kind of OCD about making sure I have the intentions of folks correct.

Having seen the effects of "consensual" pedophilia first hand in psychology literature and professionally I had no problem coming in on that side here. Also lots of the discussion revolved around the part with no real victims or how to deal with the issue without witch-hunt mentality.

I think a potential warning should reflect OPs intent, and note the evolving discussion and opportunity to actually seriously consider the associated issues. Something that western society badly needs (forget just Bronies). I'm fully capable of handling the issue and would have no problems keeping things moderated here.

Its just a no-brainer to me that this is a damn important discussion:
1. Nature or Nurture there are a percentage of Bronies who have pedophilic attractions.
2. Many of these Bronies may have no experience with the harm that results from such encounters (immediate or long-term) so are legitimately wondering why they should have to hide such feelings.
3. These Bronies will be creators and consumers of CMC porn and this will always be a visible issue in the community. I hate difficult issues that no one wants to talk about Mostly because I guess I hate it when people are cowards about tough moral issues. I dive into that stuff head first
4. Such art may have the impact of creating new pedophilic attractions in some individuals.

As an analogy, think people that never had an attraction to animals before who are now enjoying anatomically "correct" R34 of the characters. I have seen some very detailed and well drawn images that are pretty much bestiality with hypothetically consenting individuals.

This shit needs talked about.

>>71119
I agree with you, let's discuss the heck out of it. I'm onside.

I was instead trying to direct people away from the original premise of "PEDOPHILIA IS BAD, END OF STORY" and actually into a useful discussion.

>>71132
>I was instead trying to direct people away from the original premise of "PEDOPHILIA IS BAD, END OF STORY" and actually into a useful discussion.

I understand. I'm still going back and forth between chastising everyone too lazy to read the thread, and designing a warning. I'm actually leaning towards the chastisement at this point because that might capture a few willing to think about things more deeply Note: this does not include bans, just stern notes.

Last edited at Mon, Feb 11th, 2013 16:28

>>71095
actually we are not born predisposed towards any sexual orientation contrary to popular belief. there has never been any evidential proof of this being a real thing, and the idea that there has is only speculation based on rumor. the attempts and theories that have been made for this have been directly contradicted and debunked by other studies. also numerous case studies and tests have been conducted and confirmed that people change their sexuality all the time. and YES, out of their own free will. your choices are your experiences and your experiences impact and shape the subconscious, the subconscious is where your sexual disposition lies. but this can be changed and impacted and molded through the experiences and choices made by the conscious. so yes you do have a choice, and an honest desire to change yourself as a person, and the pursuit of that will lead to results and change over time. the brain actually shapes shifts and adapts physically to experiences, so this is something that can be scientifically achieved. just as you can work to get rid f anger problems, laziness, and depression (dont tell me you cant do it because I HAVE) so to can you work to get rid of sexual impurities and deviances. i dont judge you for having issues, but where i take issue is not wanting to take responsibility for the person you are. you make your decisions, so stand by what you think is right, and make an effort to fix what is wrong. but people dont wanna hear that, because people dont wanna take responsibility. now everybody just wants to hand it off to someone else, or diagnose it as a condition so they dont have to try and fix it. ive worked through bipolar disorder, anger issues, split personality disorder, severe depression, and some symptoms of ahzbergers. now i dont struggle with almost any of these problems cause ive made a conscienscious effort i my life to tackle and overcome these flaws in my character and i did it. im not saying its not HARD, cause it is but that doesnt mean its not possible. for the record, i used to get turned on by little kids too, and i fixed that too. those sexual desires are gone. so there, happy? im not talking out of my ass here. i get the feeling some people here are, but hey, who knows. lol

>>71159
So do you have any evidence to back up that long list of assertions, or do you want to qualify it all by saying "In my opinion"? You'll find few people on this board will take a string of absolute facts like that seriously if there's no supporting evidence. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you've also given us no reason to believe you're right.

>>71161
what as in medical reports on myself? that would be pretty uncomfortable for me. but as far as the social tests they're not hard to find. there have been several conducted by secular scientists on college students (i would mention cases documented on homosexuals seeking to become heterosexuals due to religious beliefs, but everyone here would probably assume all said tests results are biased and therefore invalid). women change their sexuality more than men do apparently. i remember a case conducted where females actually over a two year period changed their sexuality twice, some even three times, whereas males may have changed only once. i forget the college and the conductor of the test, so ill have to go look that up again. but the studies conducted about the percentage of homosexual men who had multiple brothers as siblings and/ or an "abnormal" social situation with their parents growing up is pretty alarming. as well as the fact that children who grow up adopted under homosexual parents are 33% more likely to be homosexual, definately suggests that environment is the factor and not any genetically predisposed thing that people are born with.

>>71163
No, I don't mean your own medical records. Although if you are going to use yourself as an example, then you should be aware that just because things worked out one way for you, it doesn't mean that it works out exactly that way for everybody. You can't start a post with an absolute fact like
>actually we are not born predisposed towards any sexual orientation contrary to popular belief.
Based on the fact that you don't think you yourself were.

I'm not saying that you need to footnote your posts and cite a medical article for everything you post - but if you lay down the law and post a string of facts without any peer review, then that's no more valid than me saying:
>94% of British people regularly put teabags in the bath to have a "Tea-bath". Trust me, I'm British.

It helps if you can either give a logical progression of reasoning that leads to your point, or if you can show us other people or sources that agree with your point to back it up. Of course, to save time and effort, just put "In my opinion", "In my experiences", or "I've found that" in front of your statements and they become valid opinions instead of invalid assertions Which your second post did much more, thanks :)

PS - Breaking up your paragraphs wouldn't hurt either; it makes it easier to read!

>>71159
Now then.

It is true that people can work to "Change" their sexuality. But are they really changing it, or are they simply denying it? The two are vitally different. One means actually redefining your own sexuality, and one just means acting in the way you want to contrary to your urges and instincts. One is considerably easier than the other to do.

But the bit that really bugs me is this - so what if you can "change" your sexuality? That doesn't mean it was a choice in the first place. If I'm born with two legs, and I have one amputated, then I have changed from being two-legged to one-legged. But that doesn't mean I chose to be two-legged in the first place. Just because you can "change" your sexuality, it absolutely, categorically does not logically follow that you "chose" to be that sexuality in the first place. We may be influenced by our surroundings - see the relatively higher proportion of people who come out of predominantly single-sex environments such as the military or single-sex boarding schools who are gay - but that still doesn't mean it's a choice to be gay in the first place. It also doesn't mean it's genetic, of course - but there is a middle ground between genetic traits and choices. Consider a massively fat child. Our hypothetical chubby child has no genes for overweight-ness, but it's also not his choice to be fat if his parents feed him irresponsibly (I don't mean to say homosexuality is irresponsible, it was just a convenient metaphor). Now, when the chubby boy grows up, he can work hard at losing his fat, but that doesn't mean he chose to be fat in the first place.

The analogy is not perfect, but it illustrates my point. The majority of this thread seems to be of the opinion that pedophilia can be treated as a sexuality of sorts - thus, one does not necessarily "choose" to be a pedophile (because, seriously, given the choice, who would choose something that had massive criminal and moral implications over something that was readily available and socially acceptable?). Pedophiles can, however, refuse to act on their urges, and ideally, work at overcoming them and "changing" their sexuality.

I do agree with you that pedophiles should work to overcome their problems, and that their problems are not insurmountable. And I have very little time for people who don't want to take responsibility for it either. "I can't help it, it's just the way I am". Total rubbish, it can be helped, and it should.

>>71163
Never withhold something from /dis/ because you don't think people would take it seriously. Put it up, and it'll be a good contribution to the debate. Homosexuals "becoming straight" due to religious beliefs is totally relevant to this discussion. There are few stronger imperatives to change your sexual orientation than religious beliefs, and frankly, of all people who try to change their sexuality, I wouldn't be surprised if religious people have the most success, because they have often a driving and personal desire to do so, not just external societal norms or overly conservative parents.

What's more, you say here that
> Environment is the factor and not any genetically predisposed thing that people are born with.
Do you therefore agree with me that sexuality is not so much a choice as a result of your surroundings during your formative years? This does not make it unchangeable, but it doesn't mean we should criticise pedophiles purely for being of that sexual orientation - provided that they do not act on it. Acting on such urges, now that is monstrous and unforgiveable.

>>71163
>

Bias is a terrible reason to reject anything. Everyone is biased so that leads to the rejection of everyone and everything by everyone.

What I reject are specific studies for specific reasons. Things that kill the validity of studies are flaws in methodology, unrealistic sampling, those kinds of things. For example one prominent person who does "studies" trying to prove that homosexuality is a problem is a guy named Paul Cameron. One of his studies tried to demonstrate that homosexuals had shorter lifespans than the regular population and his sample was, prisoners.

So we would give a fair hearing to whatever you might have but it would be a genuine critical eye of the type that we always gave our own work when I was in graduate school. We killed each other ideas and proposals all the time.

>>71165
half and half, the environment has an effect on you certainly and it affects your choices. but you still have the capability to not be a product of your environment. the difficulty of acting on this capability varies based on your environment, but that still stands.

also good to know! ill have to go and re- dig that back up. good to know people are welcoming of different opinions here as long as they are well presented. :)

Last edited at Tue, Feb 12th, 2013 11:28

>>71174
Verily. Being the product of your environment doesn't mean you can't exercise any influence over the end result of you.

And
>welcoming of different opinions here as long as they are well presented.
That is exactly the ideology we try to promote on dis! :D

Dear OP:

Seriously, honestly, I mean this absolutely and from the bottom of my heart.

Please kill yourself.

You would be doing a favor to society.

Thanks for your cooperation.

(How about no? )

I was with you until you said child porn isn't hurting anyone... because that's blatantly untrue.
The rest is fine. You were born this way and you're a good person who wouldn't hurt anyone, that's totally normal.
You wouldn't abuse a child.
But... child abuse is child abuse.
And CP is child abuse.

OP pls die

>>71191
Child Abuse Material is the term I'd prefer to use for material that contains child abuse. Child Porn suggests willingness of some sort if you ask me. Besides, it appears to lead to less child victims when decriminalized or legalized in certain contexts.

However if there are abusers I think we should call it child abuse material and agree it would be better not to have people doing things against their will.

>>70251

What you are doing is morally wrong!

Go to jail.
Go directly to jail.
Get anally raped in jail.
Do not pass Go.
Do not collect $200.

>mine countenance whereupon you're defending CHILD PORN
you FETISHIZE over CHILDREN.
i believe everyone has a quality and that everyone is born some way (gay, lesbian, etc) but dude, fuck you.

Last edited at Tue, Feb 12th, 2013 19:42

>>71206
Keep it out of /dis/, Heck

>>71207
Keep out of that child, anon.

>>71208

You are the worst person.

>>71190
>>71195
>>71204
>>71205

I know you mean well, but on /dis/ you need more than emotions and wishing death is not welcome here. Yes even for a topic like this.

If you look above you will see serious attempts to discuss this rationally for the sake a actually finding a solution to problems like this. You will see lots of well articulated reasons for why CP is wrong. You will see attempts to find solutions that actually reduce the number of abused children instead of harassing people with an attraction underground where they won't get help and won't be as willing to consider why CP is wrong. You are not helping.

Not emotional masturbation that is in line with throwing rotten fruit at people in stocks.

Tomorrow I will be making a carefully worded note at the top of OP. Please raise your maturity level when posting in /dis/. Some of that is not even within site rules.

>>71206
You too. That is behavior for /b/, not /dis/ or Ponychan. I'm sending you a warning just in case.

I have to respectfully disagree with you that cp is harmfull

Last edited at Wed, Feb 13th, 2013 00:58

>>71174
So you believe that we are not born predisposed towards any sexual orientation, so genetics has zero effect. And you believe that the effect of environment is half and half.

So . . . half and half with what? Genetics and environment are everything, there isn't anything else. That's all a person is, a specific set of genes expressed in a specific environment.

And regarding your assertion that we aren't born predisposed towards any sexual orientation, what do you say to the actual twin studies research on this that I cited here: >>70892

As I said in that thread, sex and reproduction are only the most important thing to evolutionary selection forces ever. There's no way that heterosexual attraction, the only kind that directly increases the frequency of your genes by producing offspring, isn't going to be naturally dominant. That would be one of the most surprising psychological findings I could imagine.

>>71218
Makes two of us at least!

I was hoping some of the responses would be substantial, but instead all I found was
>>71195
>>71204
>>71205
>>71207
>>71208
>>71210
>>71211

>>71218
I congratulate you for your calm and moderated response, but would you care to your elaborate on your point? Because I disagree with you and I say cp is harmful. At the very least, you could qualify your statement by saying "Not all cp is harmful". I'd still disagree, though.

> it appears to lead to less child victims when decriminalized or legalized in certain contexts.
What contexts?

I don't really feel secure in the idea that legalising child porn leads to less victims.

Is this like "if you legalize stuff, it will not be done in the dark, so operations become easier to overview on abuse"?

I held the notion a few threads ago that legalising means you make a market for child pornography. Pedophiles no longer need to shun behaviour, they can just go out and indulge in their sexuality and feel fine doing so. It sounds nicely, but will it be a good idea to tell pedophiles that right now sex with children is nothing to be ashamed of or to contain yourself from?
And you're setting up a market for child pornography. Sure, you have it in the dark now and maybe it's easier to check up on when it's open. But still, you make it okay that people rope kids in to work for pornography. Kids that don't really should be working in the first place, less of all shooting themselves having sex with strangers for strangers to masturbate to.
And you can be damn sure that legal childporn is a solid income for porn producers. they'll take it happily.

Last edited at Wed, Feb 13th, 2013 05:21

Oh.... Dear

>>71242
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html

Some other interesting stuff on that page as well regarding pornography and its role in what they say reduces physical victim crimes.

>>71249
First glance:
>While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

So is real CP also included in it then?

The thing that interests me is whether or not CP that has already been made is harmful. Sure, when someone is watching CP directly from a distributor it can be argued that they are supporting the abuse of children but what if the CP was still available but for free?

What I'm saying is, after the producers behind CP get arrested, you have a lot of footage that just gets destroyed. How about, instead, we USE that footage to quell the desires of pedophiles?

No one is profiting from it, but the pedophiles still get their "fix".


A similar situation would be footage of real life gruesome events. There are no laws keeping sadists from getting off to footage of torture or dismemberment. All they need to do is look online for gruesome pictures, car wrecks (which is an actual fetish), or other violence and there they go. Real footage of crimes that they can calibrate to.

In both violent footage and child porn there is a victim. However, child porn is gotten rid of while violent footage is analyzed, learned from, and even made publicly available.

It isn't illegal to masturbate to violent footage.
It is illegal to masturbate to child porn.

Why not make watching child porn from distributors/producers or supporting the distributors/producers illegal but make the already recorded footage available to pedophiles for free?

>>71252
If a girl gets raped and the rapist tapes his abuse. Should it be okay for the tape to be featured on porn sites?

>>71253

I would say no, as one of the parties doesn't consent to their body being shown in that way.

On the other hand, it would lead to easier conviction of the rapist, I imagine.

>>71252
You've totally forgotten that the children involved are people with rights.

Imagine if I took abusive pornographic video footage of you. That's bad, we'll all agree. But you'd also not want the footage distributed on the Internet for everyone to see. Decency and right to privacy should prevent it. You simply cannot allow distribution of child porn for the cause of allowing pedophiles to "get their fix".

I'm sorry, but have we lost our goddamn minds here? These are children we're talking about. What goes on in somebodies mind is their own business. Heck, even drawn stuff, even though I find it sick and I believe it's morally wrong; technically you're hurting nobody by calibrateing to it. But anybody who gets a kick out of seeing actual kids being taken advantage of needs LOCKED UP. Infact, people who fantasise about it need put into mental hospitals so they don't harm anybody, and anyone who claims to be one of said people, if they have any compassion in their hearts, they will turn themselves in and not let this disgusting mental illness take over, because it does. No matter how "in control" they think they are of it. You can't fix these people. They're broken and will always be like that, for life. Pedophiles CANNOT control their urges and eventually will end up seriously damaging a child's life.

I have VERY liberal views on sex. But I can't stand for this; or anything relating to this. I've had childhood friends who were happy, healthy, decent and well adjusted, and then they were abused, and after that they changed in a way that is too sad to talk about.

OP, if you're reading this, for the sake of innocent kids, TURN YOURSELF IN. You'd be doing everybody a favour.

Last edited at Wed, Feb 13th, 2013 15:24

>>71260
You had some kind of moral high ground until you said all pedophiles should be locked up because
>They're broken and will always be like that, for life. Pedophiles CANNOT control their urges and eventually will end up seriously damaging a child's life.

I'm sorry, but do you have the faintest idea what you are talking about? Can you give any kind of support or evidence for your assertions? Do you have even the slightest inkling of the number of people who feel pedophilic urges, and suppress them and don't act on them? Do you know how many pedophiles successfully control their desires and even overcome them?

>>71261
I'm talking about people who have SERIOUS urges and have them constantly.

Listen I don't wanna get into any arguments here. I do feel very angry about this, mainly because some of my friends have been abused and I've seen what it's done to them. So can you understand my frustration and hurt here?

"Locking up" doesn't mean, jail. I mean, sectioned, put into psychiatric care. If they've hurt nobody and don't intend to hurt anybody, they don't deserve to even be put into that. But people who get these urges regularly and often, THEY DO NEED HELP. I'm sorry, I can't change my own opinions on this. It's a serious problem and it can't be denied it ruins kids lives.

I apologise as my first post was very knee-jerk. I just really get upset about this particular subject.

I do have the maturity to admit I get overly-pissed off about this, and this is a hot button topic for me.

However I can imagine, for a person who never wants to do anything like that, to have said urges, would make their lives hell and make them feel like horrible people.

Last edited at Wed, Feb 13th, 2013 15:51

I will have a note at the top of the thread before my day is out. My day has been nutty.


I need to find out where they got their numbers but I found this today.

"Evidence for Heritability of Adult Men's Sexual Interest in Youth under Age 16 from a Population-Based Extended Twin Design."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23347512
Note:That this study is limited to men is OFF-TOPIC and would not advance any of the arguments here. When I find studies looking at incidence and genetics having to do with female pedophiles I will put them up.

>"The incidence of sexual interest in children under age was 3%. Twin correlations were higher for monozygotic than for dizygotic twins. Behavioral genetic model fitting indicated that a model including genetic effects as well as nonshared environmental influences (including measurement error), but not common environmental influences, fits the data best. The amount of variance attributable to nonadditive genetic influences (heritability) was estimated at 14.6%"

So at least one out of every 50 people around you has a sexual attraction to children. Not every one of them will actually act on such. They deserve to be left alone. We need to stop the hysteria and actually find solutions. That there may be a genetic component means that it will keep popping back up so we might as well talk now as any other time. "Getting rid" of them all would not work anyway.

For the record I would say that the CP involving real children should stay banned. There is a victim in the chain of activity and that matters. Virtual will have to do IMO.

>>71263
While I appreciate that you apologise for a heated post, it wasn't helpful to post it in the first place. The only way we can discuss sensitive topics like this on /dis/ - and it is good to discuss them - is if we remain calm and reasonable, otherwise we won't get anywhere.

Your second post doesn't so much justify your post as invalidate it. But it also doesn't really introduce anything to the discussion either. Few people would disagree that pedophiles with serious and constant urges need help, few people would disagree that they need psychiatric help, few people would deny that it's a serious problem, few people would deny that abuse ruins children's lives.

I'm sorry that your friends were mistreated - I really am, even if it doesn't sound like it - but invading the thread will all guns blazing, and then retracting the previous comments and replacing them with the most generic "Pedophiles need psychiatric help and child abuse is bad" lines doesn't really get the thread far.

Please, please continue to contribute. But could I ask you to think a little bit first? Otherwise we're not really a /discussion/ board, we're an /argument/ board.

Last edited at Wed, Feb 13th, 2013 15:58

>>71265
Flutterguy, did you see my email?

>>71267
I don't see it.

>>71266
I'm a bit scared I've posted on this thread in the first place. I wouldn't want rozzers at my door over the fact I'm even talking about this stuff. Are we all gonna get party-vanned or something?

And as for stuff to contribute to this thread: I've been told multiple times that "true" pedos can't control their urges. I personally think having urges is a bad sign about someone to begin with; but if they don't actually act on it, or use the porn, they're not inherently evil. But still, it raises red flags to me even if somebody considers it, or tries to justify it. I mean there's a law in the UK that makes fictional depiction/drawings of minors illegal. Do you think that's wrong or not? I personally think that someone can like that sort of thing and not be actually attracted to kids.
I'm a bit creeped out by this thread as I haven't visited Ponychan in a while and suddenly stuff like this is being talked about.

>>71268
I was basically saying that the topic is still clearly going, but it's getting tangled up because no one in their right mind wants to read through 180 posts before making their contribution. I thought you might want to start a new thread to continue the debate, and take the opportunity to put the relevant disclaimers at the top.

>>71269
I wasn't aware of such a law. What does said law have to say about drawings which are widely available on the internet? Does the law really attempt to police the pen of an artist?

As for "True" pedophiles not being able to control their urges - come on, what on earth is a "true" pedophile? It sounds like you're using circular logic. A "true" pedophile is one who abuses kids, and clearly he can't control his urges cos hey, he abuses kids. But what about the hundreds of thousands of people who have sexual urges and control them?

This is not an issue of black and white. One is not either a "normal person" or a vicious child rapist. One is not either totally morally upright or lusting after every single child they see. Just as straight/gay sexuality exists on a spectrum, so must pedophilia. For some pedophiles these urges will be easier to control and for some harder, but you are far too reductionist in your arguments and they don't hold.

>>71269
No one is going to get banned. At the most I might have someone temporarily banned from /dis/ if it becomes a problem.

What I want here is discussion, and passion is OK as long as it involves actual attempts to exchange information.

>I'm a bit creeped out by this thread as I haven't visited Ponychan in a while and suddenly stuff like this is being talked about.

If you look above you will see serious efforts of demonstrating why sexual activity between adults and children is wrong, Why CP should remain illegal.

As for why it is being talked about, as the moderator of /dis/ I can tell you that this subject does come up every other month or so. Think about it, we have artists making CMC porn. We have a society that is completely insane when it comes to sex in general and I bet most of the people in this thread have never even peeked at what science knows about this.

Meanwhile societies "solutions" create more problems than they solve,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony

...to the point where people can be put on these registry in some states for "Romeo and Juilet" type situations and things like drunken public urination.

I'm with you on the hatred of abused children. There is a little thing in my head that wants to take a child rapist and grab their neck and bite their face off bit by bit. But that approach kills the only thing that will solve these things in the long term. Rationality, and evidence.

Last edited at Wed, Feb 13th, 2013 16:27

http://www.reddit.com/r/casualiama/comments/18g9zk/i_was_a_fem_starlet_translation_child_porn_model/

>>71270
Then if what you're saying is right, then that makes this a veeery complicated subject. You can't really pin down who are the bad guys and who are the people who are unfortunate enough to have these urges. I really don't know what to think about all this now. :|


And technically, yes, "Loli" is illegal in the UK. It went live a year or two ago. But it's one of those laws that is so subjective that it would be difficult for anybody to be caught.

And I do think that policing the pen of an artist is pointless and unenforceable.

Since Miku is 16, technically that would make any pornographic depiction of her illegal, and most of my friends are drooling over her.

>>71271
I agree with you on that. I guess more than anything seeing this thread was a shock to me as I've never really seen such things openly discussed like this. It's just I'm not even sure if discussing this sort of thing *is* legal.

>>71273
I think it's legal, unless people start to share pornographic material. It's not like this thread gathers pedophiles and we're all exchanging pedophile stories and throwing in our material sources (mind you, I don't have any)

>>71271
It poses another question. What to do with sexual offenders that are 'reformed'. How safe is it to let them live unsupervised? Do we need to keep them away from children by force? Or can we just say "reformed" and let them do whatever they wish?

In a way, the Julia Tuttle plan seems a bit an option, were it not that they were forced to live in poor conditions.

>>71272
that is striking in the matter.
Though, I don't oppose kid's pageants and modelling. By modelling I mean for standard commercial and maye kid's magazines things.
Not for adult magazines to be lusted on.

>>71253
>If a girl gets raped and the rapist tapes his abuse. Should it be okay for the tape to be featured on porn sites?

No, that is child abuse material. Now if it looks like a video she and her boyfriend of equal-ish age took of themselves I would say that is child pornography rather than child abuse material. The problem with assuming that they are always being victims in situations where they look like they're making it themselves, is that you then need a victimizer and if there wasn't one to begin with at all, someone will get nailed for something they didn't do probably.
>>71251
My understanding is that child abuse material is a no but pornographic material depicting under age persons was decriminalized or legalized in the instances (real life) which possibly led to less real life victimizations.

>>71253
Someone is profiting from that material and being encouraged to produce more of it. I thought I made it clear that I thought that that was wrong.

>>71255
This makes more sense. You're right, I completely forgot about that. Minors have the right to anonymity.
The only way I could see around that is if they censored their faces, which would just end up making lolicon a more attractive alternative most likely.
It was an interesting thing to ponder, though.

I love this thread. Not only has the unquestionable been questioned, but peoples reaction have been quite humorous as well.

>>71274
Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
If the man has not yet committed a crime but desired help anyways, let him live alone.

If the man has already committed a crime, however, that's where it gets iffy. I'm not quite sure what would they should, if anything, be forced to do.

>>71311
> Someone is profiting from that material and being encouraged to produce more of it.
I thought the idea was that the actual rapist could be caught and no longer around.

>>71279
Mind you, as his thread hints at, fictional material is different from actual footage. I'm not totally comfortable with people having a drawn child porn collection, but maybe it's a decoy from the real deal.

When it comes to same age voluntary tapes, I still feel that it is encouraging two young to make sex tapes. It's iffy to say that someone who owns such a tape needs to be locked up and labelled forever. But distribution of the tape needs to be shut down. If someone has a collection of such videos, I would seriously suggests he needs to seek help.

I know this has been said already, but I need to say it for myself.

Looking at photos of children was wrong.

No, what you said about the hysteria and demonization of pedophilia and sex offenders is right. It's not constructive. We need to confront sex crimes with a new approach. A better approach. Can I blame people in this thread for feeling like they do? No, I can't. But it doesn't help or solve anything.

But this isn't about that. It's not even about the potential legality or current illegality of what you did, or what should happen to you (I pray you don't end up like Nicholas Pinto). It's not about anyone else, or anything else, but you, and your own sins.

OP, there are ways of dealing with your sexuality. There may even, in time, be a way to correct it, if science is ever allowed to. You can cope with this in ways that are healthy, and do not affect real people. There's fiction, and there's fantasy, and there's friends to help keep you from doing this again, and there's professional help.

But you have to understand, even if you don't want to, and it's hard to admit:

Any child can be convinced that what they're being forced to do is a fun game. Any child can be forced to smile, when they're so scared of being punished. Anyone can convince themselves, in spite of all the apparant signs, that what's happening to them is consensual, and their agency is not being violated. Sure, I wasn't there with you, seeing what you saw, but I'm never going to, and I don't have to.

I don't blame you for deluding yourself, just like I don't blame anyone that's seen this thread wanting you raped and tortured and dead. But they're wrong. And you're wrong. What you did affected real people. It effected people that are gonna grow up injured and broken. Knowing that someone is enjoying that exact moment in time that they were injured. They're gonna be fire and brimstone and a runaway train and a plane crash. They'll never be normal. They may end up killing themselves. They may end up killing someone else. Maybe they'll end up like their attackers, and go after children they went after them. Or maybe like you, at this very moment, witnessing another soul's crucifiction at childhood preserved in rows and columns of dots in a jpeg file.

And it doesn't matter if you didn't pay for it. You still contributed.

But that doesn't mean you're scum for the rest of your life. That doesn't mean you can never be a better person than the thing you are now.

You can be. You can be a good person. Even after this.

But you have to confront what you did.

You have to understand the depth of it.

Far worse people like General Buttnaked have faced their own demons. I face mine on a daily basis. And you have to face your own. Not for someone else's approval, because that approval may never come. You have to do it for yourself. You have to move on from what you did and be better than it and you have to do it for yourself, and the sooner you do that, the easier it's going to be on your soul.

am i the only sane person left here

>>71330
Gee, Mister, I don't know, maybe you could demonstrate for us.

le /mlp/ legion <3

If this thread is going to be continually bumped without discussion, let me suggest taking this topic into a new segment of discussion if all don't mind (rather than make a new thread lol).

Now, in the exchange above, I suggested that and provided some links/data that there seems to be a relationship between the availability of sexual material of minors (aka non victim child porn or child porn that isn't child abuse material for instance) and a reduction in actual child victims.

IF this trend is true, then let me pose this question: does the LACK of availability of sexual material actually GENERATE pedophilia or interests in it?

In other words, if we take a group of 1000 people, and expose half of them to 'adult' material during their teens and generally earlier in life, do these people exhibit pedophilia tendancies LESS THAN the other half for whom we restrict acccess to adult material to?

One reason I suspect htis could be true is because we have had a couple of self admitted pedophiles come along, and if I recall correctly, they blamed their faith for teaching them that masturbation and sexual material was sinful, and so they seemed to feel the sexual feelings they had were repressed and as a consequence, trying to 'deal with it' later produces an attraction to children for them.

I can't help but wonder if this basic equation is true... the more censorship the more child victims, and less censorship the less child victims?

Thoughts?

>>71714
It's n overly common idea. Forid something and forbidden fruit and stuf. it will only make things more enticing.
Illegalising drugs creates more addicts, illegalising piracy makes more people pirate stuff.

It's hard to believe it works. I mean, should we legalize other crimes too and say "well if you can rape women freely, people will start raping less."

I admit that repression is not a healthy thing on ones mind perhaps. But i'm iffy to think that if it is opened freely the problem will solve itself.
Don't ask me aabut statistcs, though.

Aolso and formost on this point, do make a distinction between allowing admission (I think in general you can admit to being a pedophile without getting legal issues), access to drawn and fictional CP and actual CP.

It is very much possible that allowing loli serves as a lightning deflector. But that does not mean we should be allowed to take pictures of kids naked to solve the problem.

>>71719

>But that does not mean we should be allowed to take pictures of kids naked to solve the problem

Right, I'm not for victiming children either, but I'm throwing 'sexting' and 'victimless child porn not including child abuse material' under the same bus as drawn material.

Some may or may not disagree, and thats fine, but myself personally I don't see things like sexting as heinous or production of child pornography in a legally punishable sense similar to production of child abuse material.

There was a big exchange between Tamar and I about what constitutes what and what should be or shouldn't be done about what. To summarize I'll just reiterate my somewhat unique view that if there isn't a victim and the children are say, teenagers, sexting each other or making their own pr0nz, I consider that along the same lines as drawn material in that there is no victim.

However an adult involved with a minor is default no-no to me as well.

>>71720
For what it's worth I'll briefly restate my side of that discussion too, since it's buried in the massive textwalls miles above.

Essentially I'm not sure about "victimless child porn". While it is possible to have "pornographic" imagery of children that doesn't damage children psychologically (or physically for that matter), I think that this is in a tiny, tiny minority of the child porn that gets distributed - and a minority of the demand, too - and even if that weren't the case, I think it is virtually impossible to rule decisively on what is "victimless" and what is not. Given the vulnerability of the subjects - children - I am in favour of more simple, blanket legislation that errs on the side of caution and safety for children.

Of course I don't mean to say that Graham doesn't care about children, or supports child porn. What's more, we both agree that pedophiles are often not treated in a just manner by the justice system, because society is overly stigmatised and sensationalist on the subject. Yes it is a bad thing, and yes it is an awful and horrific thing, but that should not allow the justice system to be sensationalist itself. Overly vitriolic, aggressive, and vengeful treatment of convicted pedophiles is not acceptable, because the justice system should be balanced, not vengeance-based.

Good lord people I'm disgusted.
I've been short-term banned twice for a light-weight joke about commiting suicide but you have over 200 post thread about unfairy treatment of paedophiles.
But after couple posts i guess it's one of /mlp/'s raids


Being attracted to an underage person is justifable considered as a crime. It's paraphiliac and it's against the nature because underage person isn't able to reproduce. So having sexual intercourse (being attracted sexually means you want to satisfy your needs even if you aren't going to do it) with underage person doesn't compute on the biological level, it's a waste of energy.

Children are protected by law, they can't be forced to work, to fight and be used as a sex toys. They are sacred, and you better keep yo dirty hands out of them.

And before you reply. I'm talking about young organisms before they hit puberty. Post-pubescent humans start to develop sexual abilities. Being attracted to 16 (or even sometimes 15/14) years old girl isn't bad because she is capable to bear a child and her young organism make it easier. That's how nature created us. Pre 18 are protected by law because they aren't (usually) mentally mature to do it. It's fair.

Paedophiles (active ones) are demonised by society because they deserved it. Nobody likes them, nobody respect them and as far as I know, most of them are thrown in jail with murderers in my country. Almost every single one of them is killed by cooprisoners within month or two.


And you OP.
If you are a paedophile and you are attracted to pre-pubescent children I would consider chemical castration or/and psychological help. To keep the children safe.

>>71722
Ladies and Gentleman, this is a prime and spectacular example of not bothering to read what people have posted and making presumptions about what the opinions of the contributors are.

Thank you for your opinion, anon. Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

>>71722
In fact, I was too dismissive of your contribution in my previous post. I apologise.

It is a useful contribution because it is an example of the kind of sensationalist and reactionary approach to pedophile criminals that justice must avoid. Justice must be concerned with justice, not anger and revenge.

>>71722
>>71722
i don't normally do this but

>Being attracted to an underage person is justifable considered as a crime.

stopped reading there, you can't police thought

>>71723
>implying i didn't read the whole thread
>implying it isn't my opinion no matter if somebody said that before becuse quoting everybody and writing "this" all over again is boring

>>71724
>implying you are not buttfrustrated about my opinion because it hurts your feelings, you little dirty pedo.

>Justice must be concerned with justice, not anger and revenge.
tell me how world should deal with pedos without using whole power, glory and psychological factor of frontier justice.

>>71726

>tell me how world should deal with pedos without using whole power, glory and psychological factor of frontier justice

realistically, humanely, practically, and without being the thought police

>>71726
>>implying i didn't read the whole thread

It seems pretty obvious to me you didn't, or perhaps you just didn't understand.

However like Tamar said, you actually do provide a useful contribution to the thread. For that I thank you, and advise you to please consider the difference between thoughts and actions.

From your message, it isn't tough to assemble a scenario where people who become aroused at the picture of a minor in a sexually provocative way should be imprisoned with murderers where they will then be killed.

You clearly either do not undertand the defenition of pedophile, or do not understand that thoughts don't equal crimes, or you think that policing thoughts and exacting 'justice' based on opinion is entirely justifiable.

In any case I think you are wrong. Please consider distinguishing the difference between thoughts and actions: between opinions and actions.

>>71731
>you think that policing thoughts and exacting 'justice' based on opinion is entirely justifiable.
fun fact: that is fascism

>>71728
>realistically, humanely, practically, and without being the thought police
any examples?
rehabilitation? I'm sure they've tried that and they are still trying but it doesn't work. It's like telling a grown man to stop looking after sexual partners. Sex drive is natural and basic instinct.
Being nice and polite to paedophiles and not alienating them?


>>71731
>You clearly either do not undertand the defenition of pedophile.
i'm pretty sure definition of a paedophile is pretty clear.
person sexually attracted to a minor.

>Please consider distinguishing the difference between thoughts and actions: between opinions and actions.
hold on purdy boy
thoughts, lets consider this
You are looking at picture of kneeling, naked 8 years old. And you are getting an erection. Why? She doesn't have breast, wide hips or any other feature indicating she is ready to have sexual intercourse with you or bear a child.
But your erection clearly says you want it. Masturbating to this picture means you satisfied your sexual needs by visualizing her with you.
And it's fucking wrong, because if it wasn't prohibited by law you would consider doing it physically. Prove me wrong.
That's why law doesn't want to distinguish thoughts/actions in case of paedophiles. You think about it, dream about it (you are caught on having CP collection otherwise who would know about it lel) and even if you feel bad about it, you are a threat to the children. You are removed to protect them.

>>71735
despite this i'm not trying to imply how clear and flawless i am. what am i saying. I have full folder of cloppics and i've masturbated to man-mare videos numerous times. It's silly but fun. And mares seem to like this kind of treatment. And as long as it's legal i'm okay with this.
Speaking of CP, i've seen some, and no, i don't feel any guilt for doing that. It's gruesome, but darknet knows how to avoid law


But what i'm trying to say is no, paedophiles aren't unfairly treated. Parents are afraid that someone would hurt their child. And i'm pretty sure caring parents would rip out heart from your chest for that.
Pedophiliac attitude isn't illegal just to make them angry or alienated. The only reason why paedophilia is banned is to protect the children from abuse, being depressed and traumatized for the rest of their lifes.



Woah
I feel bad for OP right now.
I understand you don't want to hurt anyone.
If you read this, please, look for some help.

>>71735
>rehabilitation? I'm sure they've tried that and they are still trying but it doesn't work. It's like telling a grown man to stop looking after sexual partners. Sex drive is natural and basic instinct.
*There are such things as recidivism statistics. You can look them up to defend saying that it "doesn't work".
*Sex drive is a basic instinct but because not everyone is a rapist that means that people have sexual self control.

>Being nice and polite to paedophiles and not alienating them?
*Finding ways to help them with their attraction if they need it. Leaving them alone if they don't need help because you punish crimes, not feelings or attractions.

>And it's fucking wrong, because if it wasn't prohibited by law you would consider doing it physically. Prove me wrong.
Its not our job to prove you wrong, you have the argument. You prove it.

>>71735
Firstly, thanks for calling me a dirty pedo. You've evidently really digested and understood what I've written in this thread, and then said completely the opposite just to cleverly trick us into thinking you're a colossal douchebag.

Secondly - pedophiles can't be rehabilitated? So, gonna show us any evidence for that?

>"If it wasn't prohibited by law you would consider doing it physically"
Go on, tell us all about how the only reason you don't do anything is because it's illegal.

>I'm pretty sure definition of a peadophile is pretty clear.
>person sexually attracted to a minor
You've defined a pedophile but not a criminal. I'm going to do you the honour of actually giving you an example here instead of just saying you're wrong.

If I say to you, imagine a really poor guy who wants to steal something. But they don't steal it. So they're not a criminal, right? Now imagine another poor guy who wants to steal something, and he does steal it. He is a criminal, isn't he? Yeah, he is.

Now imagine a pedophile who's attracted to kids but never touches them or downloads pictures. They're a pedophile, but not a criminal, aren't they? Now imagine a pedophile who's attracted to kids, and then abuses some children and downloads a whole load of pictures. They are a criminal, aren't they? We'd all agree.

I hope that's made things clear to you. Please don't call me a dirty pedo again, because that's offensive, totally untrue, and exposes your lack of understanding of ANYTHING that's been discussed in this thread.

>>71743
>>71740
Just read what i wrote underneath

>Go on, tell us all about how the only reason you don't do anything is because it's illegal.
Sure. Stopped smoking weed as soon as my "edgy rebel teen" phase ended. Because it's illegal.

>You've defined a pedophile but not a criminal.
He asked for a definition of a paedophile, not a paedophile-rapist m8.


>Now imagine a pedophile who's attracted to kids but never touches them or downloads pictures. They're a pedophile, but not a criminal, aren't they?
But of course, and I don't think they'll be punished in any way, so what's the point?

>>71754
So just because you - one person - quit weed one day, you think you have authoritative knowledge on all pedophiles? Because I don't.

As for describing the difference between a pedophile and a criminal, my POINT is that the law can do nothing and should do nothing about someone who has desires or fetishes, no matter how unpleasant. People don't always choose to have these desires - yes, they can change them, but they don't choose to have them in the first place, and penalising them for it is thought police. Ever read 1984?

A pedophile is nothing more than an unpleasant person. It is not until they actually take action on those urges that they become a criminal and should be dealt with by law.

You could possibly argue that the law should intervene with known pedophiles even if they haven't acted on their urges - maybe so, but in such a case it must be rehabilitation, not punishment, because the pedophile has not actually done anything wrong at that point.

>>71720
> 'sexting' and 'victimless child porn not including child abuse material' under the same bus as drawn material.
I'm not sure how the law works at this point and maybe I think there should be weighted judging for some cases. Raping a kid and owning CP are 2 different things, both illegal but not as bad.
Sexting is usually something between two kids in private. If this gets on the web, it's likely that this is not consensual thing. I think it's important that it's taken down and those who distribute it can be liable for distributing illegal content with extra concern as a minor is involved. those who own it, own paedophilic material that a minor has not consented to. I think it should be illegal just to protect the honorability of the subject. He/she may have wanted his/her lover to get that material, but not random strangers. Though at this I admit it shouldn't be charged the same as were it child rape.

The second one of porno made by kids and getting out there on their own consent. It should be taken down and servers who often spread that material should face legal charges. We should not encourage kids to make porno at such a young age. It's really not healthy.
People owning such material should have their drives wiped clean.
But also here, I admit that they may not have to be locked away with the heavier case, from a logical viewpoint.

Overall, if drawn CP is legalised, I don't think we need material of the real deal out there anymore.

Most pedophiles don't act on their urges? So what you're saying is that most pedophiles are completely celibate and abstinent, right? I doubt it. Most human beings are neither of those things, and if pedophiles are "just like everyone else", then there is no way they are celibate or abstinent either. Sure, some may not have ever abused a child in the past, but what about the future?

Sure, I imagine it must suck to be a pedophile, but for the greater good of society they cannot act on those urges. Ever. Willing chemical castration would be best

This isn't just for pedophiles, but for anybody with a sexual fetish that deliberately and almost permanently harms another living creature.

>>71762
You're thinking much too much in black and white, and it depends entirely on your definition of a pedophile.

>Most pedophiles don't act on their urges? So what you're saying is that most pedophiles are completely celibate and abstinent, right?
-That's quite an impressive jump in logic, and no, I'm sure that's not what the person was trying to say.

Not all pedophiles are totally obsessed with children and only children. Many have relatively normal sexualities as well - some are in normal relationships, and some are even married - so it's conceivable that they would be able to overcome or ignore their desires without having to be totally celibate and abstinent from all sex.

Besides, there are pedophiles with a powerful urge, and pedophiles who sometimes experience the desire or have a slight curiosity. Would you castrate every one of them? Who's going to ask them? You? Where do we draw the line of who is a pedophile and who isn't?

Pedophilia is a psychology. Psychology does not come in nicely wrapped packages of black and white, it is changeable, full of grey areas and difficult to define. If you want to chemically castrate every person who's ever experienced "pedophilic" thoughts you may well find yourself neutering a fifth of the population.

I loathe and hate child abuse as much as you do, but I try not to let that cloud my judgement. It's abhorrent, but that doesn't mean we have to castrate every single person who can be remotely linked to it.

>>71755
Actually, I was thinking about something.

We talked about how it's not wrong to have these thoughts and repressing them is rather unhealthy.

How would it be if a person can out himself, but in doing so, he's forced to get counseling or whatever program to deal with it. The program itself is a session or some in a week to talk and to keep a person well in society. If a person refuses counseling, he's kept well under attention and can, in case things get worrying, face consequences.
Cost will be taken for by whatever insurnce there is.

It would be more like social services stuff.

>>71766
Counselling is already available, but I don't know about allowing people to out themselves and then force them into counselling. The problem with pedophilia is not that you have to keep it a secret, like with gay people in a homophobic community. Pedophiles don't suffer because they're in the closet about their sexuality. Pedophilia is just unhealthy in itself because it cannot be satisfied without an unacceptable treatment of children*. Therefore, even if it comes with counselling, the ability to "out" yourself in society won't solve any of a pedophile's problems.

I disagree with what you're saying. When I say it's not wrong to have these thoughts, I mean it's not a crime that any person should be punished for. Firstly because they haven't done anything wrong, and secondly because it can't be proved that they are thinking pedophilic thoughts. But that doesn't mean that it's good to have those thoughts, or even just fine and acceptable. It is bad and unhealthy; and expressing those feelings is bad too. Who's going to react positively to someone saying "I am a pedophile, and because I am not going to touch your children you should embrace me and accept me as an individual"? Everybody will be suspicious of that person, wondering what they're thinking as they look at their children, wondering what they're doing in that house of theirs. Everybody in the community around this pedophile is nervous and angry.

The best course of action for someone experiencing pedophilic thoughts is to go to a counsellor or psychologist and cure themselves of such thoughts. They are bad, harmful, and unhealthy. The problem is not that society has forced pedophiles into the closet, and they are repressed and should be allowed to out themselves. The problem is the pedophilia itself.

* "Pedophilia is just unhealthy in itself because it cannot be satisfied without an unacceptable treatment of children".
I stand by this, even if you consider "non-victimising" pictures of children, even if you consider naturism and nudism and so on. Pedophilia desires sexualisation and objectification of children, which is unacceptable in itself.

>>71754
>Just read what i wrote underneath
I don't see anything about recidivism statistics yet. Or the fact that we don't have anything to prove here.

>Sure. Stopped smoking weed as soon as my "edgy rebel teen" phase ended. Because it's illegal.
Because smoking weed is just like being attracted to children and we are all like you right?


>>71762
>Most pedophiles don't act on their urges? So what you're saying is that most pedophiles are completely celibate and abstinent, right? I doubt it. Most human beings are neither of those things, and if pedophiles are "just like everyone else", then there is no way they are celibate or abstinent either. Sure, some may not have ever abused a child in the past, but what about the future?

I don't think that anyone is saying that most pedophiles do or don't act on their urges. There is not data available that could make a case either way. There is the statistic that around one out of fifty people have attractions to children but the proportion of those who act on those urges are not known.
The arguments those of us taking this debate seriously are making have to do with the fact that many societies just take a "witch-hunt" or "demonization" approach to this problem ad we believe that this makes the problem worse.

>Sure, I imagine it must suck to be a pedophile, but for the greater good of society they cannot act on those urges. Ever.
We agree on this basic issue.


>This isn't just for pedophiles, but for anybody with a sexual fetish that deliberately and almost permanently harms another living creature.
We agree here too.

>>71768
>* "Pedophilia is just unhealthy in itself because it cannot be satisfied without an unacceptable treatment of children".
>I stand by this, even if you consider "non-victimising" pictures of children, even if you consider naturism and nudism and so on. Pedophilia desires sexualisation and objectification of children, which is unacceptable in itself.

I partially agree but here one would have to make a difference between exclusive pedophiles and pedophiles attracted to children and adults. A person who has another sexual outlet will have less issues than an exclusive (as an analogy think of a bisexual who never has sex with one sex because it would be cheating and their current relationship lasts).

As for the exclusive pedophile I would have to say I am ignorant about how difficult it might be, but if you consider the whole "Ex-Gay" movement it seems clear to me that individuals who are exclusively attracted to something can manage to function in other relationship contexts. I have to admit that this is more opinion than data but that might be fun to investigate despite all the cultural misinformation out there.

Last edited at Wed, Feb 27th, 2013 07:36

>>71770
I wasn't really referring to the health of the person with the pedophilic tendencies. I was meaning in general.

I meant "pedophilia" itself. Pedophilia itself is unacceptable for the reasons I gave above. It's unacceptable in people who sometimes experience slight desires, and unacceptable in a complete pedophile. Ignoring pedophilic urges is making do with a bad situation, but not solving it.

>>71772
I see. The conversation keeps bouncing around a bit. I see attempts to address pedophilia as an object, and pedophiles as objects and I get a bit fuzzy with that kind of thing on occasion.

>>71775
I agree - I don't think anyone can blame you for misinterpreting what is an incredibly incoherent discussion...

Before this thread gets 404.
I haven't slept almost whole night analysing your problem.
I think I have to invite my psychologist and ethicist friends to talk with them about that issue.
Though I'm not going to change my views on active paedophiles and i'm not even considering this but still.
Everyday you learn something new.
Thanks OP for opening my eyes.

>>71778
I'm not going let it go by any other reason than drifting off the last page. So far it seems to be a convenient example of what /dis/ is supposed to be about, trying to be serious about even the most disturbing of things.

But I do see how it could get annoying if this thread keeps popping up and I am considering options that will have to be in their own post probably. I'm thinking of seeing if we can make permanent links to reoccurring discussions at the top (like the serial threads) so everything that can be said, will be said in one post. Maybe the first couple of posts can link to "best responses" within the whole mess...

Last edited at Wed, Feb 27th, 2013 11:26

>>71764
Impressive jump? They're human, aren't they? I'd suspect oedophiles are subject to the same carnal urges as most other humans. I didn't realize that pedophiles were separated from the rest of the human populations by traits other than "is attracted to kids."

Also, I didn't call for the castration of all suspected pedophiles. THAT is a leap. I called for OP specifically to willingly do it for both himself and potential victims. A drop in libido (which he doesn't need if he doesn't plan on having an adult partner) is a small price to pay for thliddell being of one or more children.

>>71785
The jump I was referring to was:
>Most pedophiles don't act on their urges
>Most pedophiles are completely celibate and abstinent
Firstly, there's a difference between not acting on your urges and being celibate, and secondly, the point I was making in my previous post, is that this assumes that pedophiles are only, solely, totally pedophiles. To abstain from pedophilia would therefore mean total abstinence.
This is not the case, since many pedophiles have relatively "normal" sexualities and are even in relationships as well as experiencing pedophilic urges and tendencies.