Thoughts on pedophilia.

[HamburgerBoy]

you cant allow it in any fashion. those pictures have to come from somewhere, and even if the child has great fun in doing it they dont have the mental capacity to make a proper decision. most of them would grow up and completely regret it. then you also have to figure the guys who take these photos are usually abusing the kids.

so while it may seem harmless to just look at photos, and even if there is no way to stop people from looking, you cant allow it. its just not logical.

Ok. My point is more that non-consenting violent images and videos are all over the internet, free to download and fantasize about, yet AFAIK very few call for the criminalization of their possession.

 

[Merad]

I've always thought the funny thing is that it's perfectly legal to have pics of nekkid kids, they just can't be blatantly sexual. Look for example at forums or websites devoted to the nudist lifestyle and you'll find no shortage of pics of kids ranging from toddlers to teens.

 

[BladeVenom]

so while it may seem harmless to just look at photos, and even if there is no way to stop people from looking, you cant allow it. its just not logical.

How is it logical that some crime pictures are OK to view, but others aren't. It seems very inconsistent and illogical. I'm sure many of the victims of other crimes wish their pictures weren't allowed to be shown. How about accident victims? You know their parents aren't happy to see pictures of their children dead and horribly mutilated on the internet, but that's legal.

In an interesting twist, the latest story I read, the viewer was a woman. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...iIIj7w?docId=7f5f944d72d74951ad247431facd0806

 

[wirednuts]

How is it logical that some crime pictures are OK to view, but others aren't. It seems very inconsistent and illogical. I'm sure many of the victims of other crimes wish their pictures weren't allowed to be shown. How about accident victims? You know their parents aren't happy to see pictures of their children dead and horribly mutilated on the internet, but that's legal.

In an interesting twist, the latest story I read, the viewer was a woman. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...iIIj7w?docId=7f5f944d72d74951ad247431facd0806

people dont get into accidents just so others can take pictures and look at them. unless youre a stunt man or something.

 

[wirednuts]

I've always thought the funny thing is that it's perfectly legal to have pics of nekkid kids, they just can't be blatantly sexual. Look for example at forums or websites devoted to the nudist lifestyle and you'll find no shortage of pics of kids ranging from toddlers to teens.

thats why its so hard to enforce. certainly there is nothing wrong with nude photos of children.. but sometimes even the innocent legal photos can be used for the wrong reasons and then it becomes illegal.

even the supreme court couldnt define what actually constitutes child porn. their final decision was "if it seems like porn, then its porn". basically, they have no idea how to uphold the law but they, and everyone else, knows we have to try.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

people dont get into accidents just so others can take pictures and look at them. unless youre a stunt man or something.

Isn't that his point, that people don't consent to get into accidents and have pictures taken of their dismembered bodies or whatever?

 

[wirednuts]

Isn't that his point, that people don't consent to get into accidents and have pictures taken of their dismembered bodies or whatever?

i guess it would be the same if say some kids were playing outside and they took their clothes off, and a passer by took some pictures of it. legally, he could probably go to jail for those photos. which is pretty lame.

 

[IEC]

These are my thoughts:

 

[HamburgerBoy]

i guess it would be the same if say some kids were playing outside and they took their clothes off, and a passer by took some pictures of it. legally, he could probably go to jail for those photos. which is pretty lame.

It has happened. There was a story a few years about some ~16 year old girls flashing motorists and cops charging a passer-by who snapped a picture with his cell phone. But that has nothing to do with pedophilia or really this thread.

 

[BladeVenom]

Or Girls Gone Wild. Wasn't one or two of those girls 17?

I don't see how a video of a 17 year old flashing her tits, is worse than a video of a person being gruesomely beat to death.

Are tits worse than murder?

 

[ioni]

I don't think I could ever compare pedophilia to homosexuality. People are not sick just because they are born being attracted to or choose to love someone of their own sex. The major difference between pedophiles and homosexuals is that pedophiles fantasize about or choose to have sex with children.

Homos and pedos are almost exactly the same. They are people who are attracted to those who modern society wouldn't consider normal for them to be attracted to.

Yes, I will concede that it is possible for some homosexuals to also be pedophiles, but that is rare.

Actually, it seems to be the most common.

Those pedophiles who have only possessed child pornography are just as bad as the ones who have actually performed the act because not only are they fantasizing about performing such acts when they possess the child pornography, but they are also advocating the heinous crimes that are committed by the ones who perform the acts with these children or participate in the manufacture and/or distribution of the child porn.

Kind of like every person who plays a video game involving murdering someone should be given the death sentence for actual murder.

In addition, I will concede that in history, older men married young girls as a common practice. However, in those times, it was rare that it was done for any reason other than procreation. The young girls were thought to be more fertile and there was a higher chance that they would produce children for those men. Most of the time, it was not done for pleasure.

Oh, are you 2000 years old?

 

[waggy]

Or Girls Gone Wild. Wasn't one or two of those girls 17?

I don't see how a video of a 17 year old flashing her tits, is worse than a video of a person being gruesomely beat to death.

Are tits worse than murder?

Nice perky tits? no. flapjack tits? well...maybe.

 

[shortylickens]

Or Girls Gone Wild. Wasn't one or two of those girls 17?

I don't see how a video of a 17 year old flashing her tits, is worse than a video of a person being gruesomely beat to death.

Are tits worse than murder?

I wouldnt be surprised if many of those chicks were 16 or 17. But underage nudity is not illegal, just underage sex.

The beef with GGW was the guys were giving the females roofies and such to get them to do those things.

 

[Jeff7]

Or Girls Gone Wild. Wasn't one or two of those girls 17?

I don't see how a video of a 17 year old flashing her tits, is worse than a video of a person being gruesomely beat to death.

Are tits worse than murder?

In the US, and some other Puritanical nations, plenty would say yes.
Hell, let's be like Australia, where some top-notch politicians determined that small breasts (in porn) = pedophilia.


Want to show boobs on TV? Hell no.
Want to show murder? Sure, as many as you like. Just no headshots, that's too gruesome.
For example, Stargate SG-1: You could gun down a crowd of bad guys with automatic weaponry (as long as they're shot in the torso), or show someone being slowly stabbed to death with a slow stream of knives. But if there would be a naked person somewhere in-frame, that would surely cause problems.

 

[SlitheryDee]

We can't decriminalize real child pornography. They use real children to make them. Now cute asian chicks dressed up like schoolgirls...that's different.

 

[Jeff7]

We can't decriminalize real child pornography. They use real children to make them. Now cute asian chicks dressed up like schoolgirls...that's different.

But that makes you think dirty sinful (illegal?) thoughts. What would Jesus think? (Assuming he wasn't sporting a throbbing savior himself.)

 

[SlitheryDee]

But that makes you think dirty sinful (illegal?) thoughts. What would Jesus think? (Assuming he wasn't sporting a throbbing savior himself.)

Presumably Jesus would think it's a great thing that I'm not supporting child porn. Actually given the stuff that went on back then, he probably wouldn't give a shit either way.

 

[BladeVenom]

We can't decriminalize real child pornography. They use real children to make them. Now cute asian chicks dressed up like schoolgirls...that's different.

You can still get prosecuted for obscenity. Even for Manga. The government feels they have a have to protect underage cartoons from being exploited. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

 

[Jeff7]

You can still get prosecuted for obscenity. Even for Manga. The government feels they have a have to protect underage cartoons from being exploited. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

Well someone has to protect the rights of the nonexistant. They always have such a difficult time even getting into a courtroom, and most of the time when they do, no one is capable of noticing.


I wonder...if someone were to draw two simple stick figures having sex, and then draw "Ages: 22 and 16," would that simple caption make the drawing illegal?
Next thought: Which would be seen as more offensive, that drawing of stick figure sex, or one of stick figure murder?

 

[midwestfisherman]

you have pedophiles who have done nothing wrong - except for possessing child pornography.

The possession of CP is not a victim-less crime!! Think about your absurd statement! In order to even have CP you have to take the picture or make the film. That act is a crime AND there is a victim!

Anyone involved in this hideous crime should have a bullet put in their head! Done deal!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Can the mods move this thread /b?

 

[Jeff7]

Can the mods move this thread /b?

Does that automatically generate a flushing noise?

Or does it sound more like a cacophony of terrible screams, as if a hole has been bored into the heart of hell?

 

[thejunglegod]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tricksey1979
In addition, I will concede that in history, older men married young girls as a common practice. However, in those times, it was rare that it was done for any reason other than procreation. The young girls were thought to be more fertile and there was a higher chance that they would produce children for those men. Most of the time, it was not done for pleasure.

Oh, are you 2000 years old?

That still happens in India. i.e. Older men marrying very young women.