4
   

Judges Object to Bad Sex Crime Laws

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 11:51 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Children are easy targets, easy victims. They assure a "conquest" to a predatory male. Unfortunately, this harms the female child, and her sense of self esteem, but I suppose we are not supposed to consider that, are we, Hawkeye? After all, men will be men, it's in their genes, and all that rot. Is this your idea of an acceptable norm, Hawkeye? Is this why you see child pornography as harmless?
My comments about males being naturally aggresive has little to nothing to do with kids, because I have already said that most males dont want to have sex with kids because we believe in childhood. Furthermore, I have at least hinted that sex with a child should remain illegal.


My point was about your ignorance about male sexuality. Males tend to be predatory and aggressive, and we often remain that way in spite of the laws that the feminists have written because this tactic tends to work with women. It is our natural instinct as is coded in genetics,,,,please see the bottom of page 231 speaking of Thornhill and Thornhill.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/91arthcC15.pdf

I am fully aware of the taboo against talking about this, the PC line is that it does not matter why men are aggressive because it is not "acceptable" and can be not allowed to stand....as if deciding that humans should be a certain way means that we can change who we are. I love the arrogance of the elites, how they play God and try to decide what everyone else is to be.

Not that it matters, it will not work. In my life experience the aggressive men tend to get the best women. You women can keep whining about this if you want to, but men tend to do what works, not what women tell us we should do. Any man who takes what women say they want seriously deserves what he gets, because he is an idiot.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:03 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye - Can I clue you in here? Yes, a full-grown, sexually experienced woman may like to play consensual sex games with her partner that include thoughts of ravishment...but a twelve year old girl? No!

Okay - I was a twelve year old girl once. You never were - so take it from someone who was a twelve year old girl, okay? When I was twelve or thirteen, yes, I was beginning to look forward to boyfriends and thought about relationships with males! Did I dream of being RAPED (or ravished) as my first sexual awakening or experience? NO!
Did I picture or dream of it being with someone my FATHER'S age?
NO!
I was looking at the cute little curly-haired boy sitting at the desk next to me who was just beginning to get a mustache and whose voice was changing.
Or maybe at my older sister's boyfriend - who had fifteen years to my thirteen years.

And I can tell you, as the mother of a teen-age girl who once refused to go into a restaurant in town because the adult male owner was looking at her in such a way that it made her uncomfortable, that young girls - most of them- are absolutely DISGUSTED by old men who leer at them and the very thought of sex or ravishment by one of those men is just about the biggest turn-off they can think of.

So, you need to do away with this fantasy you seem to have that any twelve or thirteen year old girl is walking around dreaming of getting raped by her father's friend.
They're dreaming of a boyfriend - emphasis on the word BOY.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:15 am
@aidan,
So what is the problem? if having sex with a girl is illegal, and the relatively few guys who want to have sex with a girl are afforded kiddie porn to take the edge off, what is the problem?

BTW- I understand the the BDSM crowd is twisted, but I have talked to women who said that they had fantasies of being raped by an adult man as early as the age of 7, so I dont buy your "sexually experienced woman may like to play consensual sex games with her partner that include thoughts of ravishment...but a twelve year old girl? No!"

But I agree with your point that young girls dont normally want to be sexual with old farts, and I never said otherwise
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:26 am
@JTT,
I work in a prison. I know that the majority of people (men, at least) who are in prison have either mental illness, addictive tendencies or both. Prisons are the new mental institutions - they're also where drug users are sent for enforced rehab- without medical or psychiatric support.

If you are a pedophile in a prison, you hope and pray that no one finds out what you're in for. Why do you think that is? My theory from talking to many of these men and hearing about their childhoods is that this population, more completely and as a majority than probably any other gathered population anywhere, KNOWS first-hand what abuse does to a child. Most of THEM were abused- that's WHY they are addicted to drugs and suffer from stress-related mental illnesses.

So I'm not without sympathy or empathy for the people who are dealing with these urges.
But Jesus God in HEAVEN - any sane person can't be a part of feeding these urges or this addiction.

I mean, I just read about what these pictures consist of - this just made me cry. You can't make these pictures for these people to look at without hurting a child:
Quote:
Child pornography


Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images and in some cases writings depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a record of child sexual abuse. Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child pornography, and the effects of the abuse on the child (and continuing into maturity) are compounded by the wide distribution and lasting availability of photographs of the abuse.

Child pornography is viewed and collected by pedophiles for a variety of purposes, ranging from private sexual uses, trading with other pedophiles, preparing children for sexual abuse as part of the process known as "child grooming", or enticement leading to entrapment for sexual exploitation such as production of new child pornography or child prostitution.

Terminology
Recently, the term "child abuse images" has been increasingly adopted by both scholars and law enforcement personnel because the term "pornography" can carry the inaccurate implication of consent and create distance from the abusive nature of the material and refer to the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents in pornography. This is to reflect the seriousness of the phenomenon and to emphasize that pornographic images of children are in fact records of a crime being committed." [29]



Child sexual abuse in production and distribution
Children of all ages, including infants,[30] are abused in the production of pornography.The United States Department of Justice estimates that pornographers have recorded the abuse of more than one million children in the United States alone.[20] There is an increasing trend towards younger victims and greater brutality; according to Flint Waters, an investigator with the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, "These guys are raping infants and toddlers. You can hear the child crying, pleading for help in the video. It is horrendous."[31] According to the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, "While impossible to obtain accurate data, a perusal of the child pornography readily available on the international market indicates that a significant number of children are being sexually exploited through this medium."[32]


The United Kingdom Children's charity NCH have stated that demand for child pornography on the internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, due to an increase in the number of children abused in the production process.[33] In a study analyzing men arrested for child pornography possession in the United States over a one year period from 2000 to 2001, most had pornographic images of prepubescent children (83%) and images graphically depicting sexual penetration (80%). Approximately 1 in 5 (21%) had images depicting violence such as bondage, rape, or torture and most of those involved images of children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded, or otherwise enduring sadistic sex. More than 1 in 3 (39%) had child-pornography videos with motion and sound. 79% also had what might be termed softcore images of nude or semi-nude children, but only 1% possessed such images alone. Law enforcement found about half (48%) had more than 100 graphic still images, and 14% had 1,000 or more graphic images. Forty percent (40%) were "dual offenders," who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography.[34]

A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by the Garda Síochána, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality.[8]


Masha Allen, who was adopted at age 8 from the former Soviet Union by an American man who sexually abused her for five years and posted the pictures on the Internet testified before the United States Congress about the anguish she has suffered at the continuing circulation of the pictures of her abuse, to "put a face" on a "sad, abstract, and faceless statistic," and to help pass a law named for her.[35] "Masha's Law," included in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed in 2006, includes a provision which allows young people 18 and over to sue in civil court those who download pornographic images taken of them when they were children. "Downloading" includes viewing without actual download, many successful prosecutions are completed through using residual images left on the viewers computer.[36]

Relation to child molestation and abuse
Main article: Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse
Experts differ over any causal link, with some experts saying that use of child porn reduces the risk of offending,[37] and others arguing that it increases the risk.[38] A 2008 American review of the use of Internet communication to lure children outlines the possible links to actual behaviour regarding the effects of Internet child pornography.[39]

According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:34 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
BTW- I understand the the BDSM crowd is twisted, but I have talked to women who said that they had fantasies of being raped by an adult man as early as the age of 7,

This, I can't comment on. I didn't even know what rape WAS when I was seven, thank god.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:55 am
@aidan,
Quote:
So I'm not without sympathy or empathy for the people who are dealing with these urges.
But Jesus God in HEAVEN - any sane person can't be a part of feeding these urges or this addiction.



I guess we are crazy then..

Quote:
There was no attempt to place the data collection within any specific time-frame or time period. It was decided that a sample of two hundred stories would provide adequate data for a content analysis. As such, the PI began data collection at a conven ient time during the semester. Once the project was begun, all stories which were copied to the alt.sex.stories group on the news server (the server location is not being disclosed for reasons of confidentiality) were downloaded and analyzed for content until the sample size had been reached. The data collection took approximately two weeks, giving approximately one hundred usable postings per week to the newsgroup. Four postings were deemed unusable (incomplete or duplicates) leaving 196 postings for final analysis.

Results
The results of this analysis were quite interesting in several respects (see table I). The most prevalent thematic element dealt with non-consent. This element was present in 40.8% of the stories. The non-consent element consists of stories of rape, child molestation, forced slavery, mind control, and other similar themes.


Table 1: Percentages by Category Category Percent of Stories
Totals exceed 100% due to multiple categorizations.
Nonconsent 40.8
Homosexual acts 36.7
Bondage 24
Discipline 23.5
Pain 21.9
Pedophilia 19.4
Torture 11.7
Group Sex 8.2
Furry 5.1
Mind Control 5.1
Incest 4.6
Bestiality 1

Totals exceed 100% due to multiple categorizations.
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.001/boeringer.html

Check out Lit Erotica and see for yourself how popular incest porn is, much of it having to do with kids. Check out the Non Consent category for extra credit
http://www.literotica.com/stories/index.php
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:10 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I guess we are crazy then..

Who's we?

I have no idea what or who your posting is referring to.

And maybe it's cowardly, but I'd really rather hang on to my delusion that the majority of adult people are not interested in and/or complicit in sexually abusing children or animals or any other vulnerable beings- so no - I won't be checking out literotica or whatever.

And that doesn't mean that I think you can't read it. You can read whatever you want that you find edifying.

I'd rather continue reading my biography of Virginia Woolf - thank you very much.

But I am interested in knowing (or curious) as to whether you think that people who look at or read pornography on a regular basis are people who don't actually get to HAVE sex very often.
That's another theory I have. If you were actually having sex, you probably wouldn't need to access it so often in these tangential and vicarious ways.
The actual act would satisfy the urge - it would seem to me.
Thus I can only theorize that someone who feels the need to seek constant and what would seem to be almost obsessive sexual stimulation/ satisfaction through print and/or visual media is probably not experiencing physical sexual satisfaction on a regular basis.
(That's why pornography is so prevalent and popular with the inmate population - as an example).
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:13 am
Just to be clear, because I have this idea the people assume that Child Porn is something like a 35 year old guy sticking his dick into a 12 year old

Quote:
In the United States, child pornography is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. While this law defines child pornography as “depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” the actual definition of what is a pornographic image is somewhat more subjective. Many court cases now use “Dost factors” (named after the U.S. v. Dost case in 1986) to determine whether an image is pornographic: these factors ask whether the focal point of the visual depiction is the child’s genital region; whether the setting of the image is sexually suggestive; whether the child is posed unnaturally or in inappropriate attire; whether the child is nude, semi-clothed or fully clothed; whether the picture indicates the child’s willingness to engage in sexual activity; and whether the image is intended to elicit a sexual response in its consumer or viewer. Notwithstanding the popularity of these factors, the U.S. Supreme Court has also stated that fully clothed images may constitute child pornography.
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/child-pornography-law.htm

WHich is a problem when we are all hot to trot to find people who have this evil porn, no matter if they have touched a child or not

Quote:
The centerpiece of the forum was a talk given by Adler in which she explored the possibility that the expansion of child pornography law in certain areas may unwittingly reinforce the very problem it fights: the sexualization of children in our culture. She asked how we can better combat child pornography and protect children without creating unintended consequences that paradoxically undermine the law’s goals.

Adler focused on two cases. United States v. Dost (1986), a case decided by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, established a six-factor “Dost test” to determine whether something qualifies as pornography, including consideration of whether a child appears sexually coy, whether the child’s genitals are the focus of the image, and whether the material is designed to elicit a sexual response. The Dost test has been adopted by virtually all jurisdictions. The second case, United States v. Knox (1994), decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, held that a picture can constitute child pornography even if the child depicted is fully clothed.

Such methods of defining child pornography, Adler said, increasingly require us to examine images based on their potential appeal to pedophiles. In doing so, they have caused us to adopt unintentionally what she calls “the pedophilic gaze”: “What does it do to children to protect them by looking at them as a pedophile would, to linger over depictions of their genitals, and what does it to do us as adults to ask these questions when we look at pictures of children?" Said Adler, "As everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the law"clothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are found"perhaps children themselves become pornographic.”

http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ADLER_SPECTACLES
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:24 am
@aidan,
Quote:
Who's we?
You said that anyone who would feed the addiction is crazy, I said given that so much of erotica has to do with kids having sex we, the collective, must be crazy. The purpose of erotica is to stimulate desire, what does it tell you when so much of erotica is about kids having sex, of women being forced into sex? How about the well known prevalence of females having rape fantasies were
Quote:
Rape fantasies can be either erotic or aversive. In erotic fantasies, the woman thinks: "I'm being forced and I enjoy it." In aversive fantasies, she thinks: "I'm being forced and I hate it." Forty-five-percent of the women in the recent survey had fantasies that were entirely erotic. Nine percent were entirely aversive. And 46 percent were mixed.

Rape or near-rape fantasies are central to romance novels, one of the perennial best-selling categories in fiction. These books are often called "bodice-rippers" and have titles like Love's Sweet Savage Fury, which imply at least some degree of force. In them, a handsome cad becomes so overwhelmed by his attraction to the heroine that he loses all control and must have her, even if she refuses--which she does initially, but then eventually melts into submission, desire, and ultimately fulfillment.

Romance novels are often called "porn for women." Porn is all about sexual fantasies. In porn for men, the fantasy is sexual abundance--eager women who can't get enough and have no interest in a relationship. In porn for women as depicted in romance novels, the fantasy is to be desired so much that the man loses all control, though he never actually hurts the woman, and in the end, marries her
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

What it tells me is that we need to go back to the drawing board and see if we can come up with some societal regulations for sexual activity that conform to who we are, because what we are doing now is fantasy driven.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:44 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
What it tells me is that we need to go back to the drawing board and see if we can come up with some societal regulations for sexual activity that conform to who we are, because what we are doing now is fantasy driven


No, what we are doing now is protecting the rights of vulnerable women and children.

And what you just posted brings me back to the question I just asked.

If so much of this erotica deals with sexual situations that are illegal (sex with children, animals and rape scenarios with adult women) does that not clue you into the fact that the primary readership of that erotica is probably comprised of people who cannot or do not fulfill their actual urges physically on a regular basis - in this case - because they CAN'T without risking arrest?

And if this erotica in print or images is to STIMULATE desire for something that is deemed inappropriate and illegal - that goes back to my point that to view pictures of children in abusive and pornographic situations- could (and I think would) lead to dangerous situations if those people who were viewing these pictures and having their sexual desires toward children stimulated came into contact with actual real, live children.

Why would you stimulate something with no hope of satiation or satisfaction? That just seems torturous and invitation to trouble.

And Hawkeye - here's another lesson about female sexuality. If a woman is attracted to a man - yeah- probably almost anything goes. But if a woman is NOT attracted to a man- sexual contact with that man of any sort - but especially being FORCED- would be just about the worst thing I can imagine happening.
I say imagining, because I've never been raped. But having been approached sexually by men in whom I've had absolutely no interest- I can tell you - these rape scenes in which the women just melts into submission to some stranger are the fevered imaginings of some twisted male ego.






hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:06 am
@aidan,
Quote:
No, what we are doing now is protecting the rights of vulnerable women and children.
what we are doing now is invading everyone privacy, is costing us a lot of money, is loading up the prisons we people who have never hurt anyone and never will, and is torturing individuals for no reason
Quote:
2818
views473 Get Chicago Alerts
Share Comments 473 CHAMPAIGN, Ill. " The family of an Illinois National Guard soldier said Friday that he's been charged with possession of child pornography in Afghanistan over innocent snapshots of a 4-year-old relative in a swimsuit.

The U.S. Army has charged Spec. Billy Miller of Galesburg, Ill., with possession of child pornography and a related charge of failure to obey an order that troops in Afghanistan not possess pornography.

Army spokesman Lt. Mary J. Pekas declined to discuss details of the case or evidence against Miller. She said the charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/billy-miller-gets-child-p_n_425611.html

Scaredy cat parents and feminists do not have the right to run roughshod over the rights of everyone else in the society in their quest for witches.

Quote:
If so much of this erotica deals with sexual situations that are illegal (sex with children, animals and rape scenarios with adult women) does that not clue you into the fact that the primary readership of that erotica is probably comprised of people who cannot or do not fulfill their actual urges physically on a regular basis - in this case - because they CAN'T without risking arrest?
My point was that a lot of people like it so it is not credible to blow it all of as the activity of a few freaks who deserve the rack...but ya...and that indicates to me that this erotica is a good thing, it makes people happy.

Quote:
And if this erotica in print or images is to STIMULATE desire for something that is deemed inappropriate and illegal - that goes back to my point that to view pictures of children in abusive and pornographic situations- could (and I think would) lead to dangerous situations if those people who were viewing these pictures and having their sexual desires toward children stimulated came into contact with actual real, live children.

we have enough problems with dangers that we know about that we are not fixing, so I am not in favor of witch hunts that shred personal freedom and privacy looking for more. And as I have said if someone dreams of ******* your kid it is none of your business unless he actually does it.

Quote:
Why would you stimulate something with no hope of satiation or satisfaction? That just seems torturous and invitation to trouble
what makes you so sure that jacking off to a picture of a cute young girl does not satisfy the itch? at the very least we need to do some research and find out.

Quote:
I say imagining, because I've never been raped. But having been approached sexually by men in whom I've had absolutely no interest- I can tell you - these rape scenes in which the women just melts into submission to some stranger are the fevered imaginings of some twisted male ego
considering that this kind of thing is the stock and trade of a very long running and very successful romance novel business...No.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It's all about power and control.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but a big part of sex for guys is the conquest part, the ravishing the female part. I know the feminists have this fantasy about doing away with this but it is coded in our genes, you all best find a way to work around it.


Speak for yourself
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The U.S. Army has charged Spec. Billy Miller of Galesburg, Ill., .


The irony, oh, dear god, the irony. The US army charging anyone with anything. The phrase, "cleaning up your own backyard" springs to mind.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:30 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
Speak for yourself
I am not giving a personal opinion, I am giving a finding of science.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:31 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
I work in a prison. I know that the majority of people (men, at least) who are in prison have either mental illness, addictive tendencies or both. Prisons are the new mental institutions - they're also where drug users are sent for enforced rehab- without medical or psychiatric support.


And this is a good thing?

Quote:
... any sane person can't be a part of feeding these urges or this addiction.


No bout adoubt it, Aidan.



gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
You got it. I Have no use for perverts but by the same token I have no use for laws against thought crimes of things which don't rise more than a half a step above thought crime.

Aside from that there are simply too many ways some computer virus could load a computer up with banned images while the owner was off fishing or at work.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
what makes you so sure that jacking off to a picture of a cute young girl does not satisfy the itch? at the very least we need to do some research and find out.


If you bothered to read what aidan posted earlier, you would not bother to ask that question

Quote:
According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved


Those statistics indicate a definite link between the viewing of child pornography and actual behavior of molesting children (76% of those arrested for internet child pornography had molested a child).

At the very least, it is obvious that those who view such child porn are people who are already sexually aroused by children, otherwise they would not seek out such images. And a high percentage (76%) of the people arrested for internet child pornography also actively molest children.

Therefore, when you arrest people for possession of internet child pornography, you are also removing many actual child molesters from the community, and probably many potential molesters as well, even in those cases where the actual sexual molestation might have gone unreported. This alone is reason to continue making the possession of child pornography illegal.

Hawkeye, your arguments on this topic range from the simply unconvincing to the downright ludicrous.

You have tried to make the case that child pornography is harmless--to the children depicted in such images, to those that view it, and to the community at large. You totally ignore the facts and legal reasoning behind the current laws which recognize that such pornography does have harmful effects and therefore should be prohibited from distribution and possession. Your further contention, that such "erotica" can actually have positive benefits, is nothing more than an unjustified speculation on your part, and one which flies in the fact of reality. It is downright ludicrous. It is like saying that we should legalize heroin and cocaine because these drugs help people to relax and legalization would cut down on our prison population. Heroin and cocaine are not harmless, and neither is child pornography.

Your second line of reasoning on this topic is that criminalizing possession of child pornography is an invasion of privacy on the part of the government, the government acting as Gestapo. This notion rests of course, on your unsubstantiated belief that child pornography is harmless, but, since evidence suggests that is not the case, the government does have a right to try to limit the distribution of such material and punishing possession is one way to try to accomplish that. The laws regarding child pornography are of international scope, and do not reflect the positions of only one government on this issue. Furthermore, in the United States, the laws reflect prevailing public opinion regarding child pornography--most people want to see it stopped, they do not want it distributed, and they want possession of it to be illegal. In this instance, the laws reflect what the public wants, it is not something that is being imposed on an unwilling populace by a Gestapo government. A society has the right to set its own moral standards, and the law reflects those standards. So, when we arrest those who possess child pornography, we are arresting people who are knowingly breaking existing laws, and, like any other lawbreakers, they have to be willing to face punishments for breaking those laws.

If current sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography result in sentences which are unduly harsh, these should be revised and clarified. That does not mean the laws should be discarded, or that they do not serve a valid function, it means the sentencing guidelines should be tightened so that they are more appropriate to the nature of the crime.

Thrown into this discussion, Hawkeye, are your own opinions on men, women, and children, regarding sexuality, much of which is based on over generalization, and some of which seems to be based on nothing more than your own personal experience or perception, such as which types of men get "the best" women. You seem to be unable to focus on the issue of children being used as sex objects in pornography, or the inherent dangers in encouraging this activity by making such material available on the internet. That's rather strange, since you posted the topic.

The topic has nothing to do with the allegedly aggressive nature of all male sexual fantasies, whether women want to be conquered and ravished, or whether feminists want men to change their genetic patterning. That you have tossed such irrelevancies into this discussion simply suggests you are unable to distinguish between children and adult women as sexual objects, and reflects your apparent belief that pornography involving children is no more or less harmful than pornography involving adult women--a totally unfounded assumption which lacks a basis of logical reasoning. Adult erotica, and adult pornography is an entirely different matter from child porn, for many reasons, and it is not really related to the topic under discussion. Child pornography exists almost exclusively to sexually satisfy or arouse pedophiles. And, if possession of this material is illegal, why should anyone feel sorry for those who get arrested because they choose to possess it anyway?

Not everyone who views child pornography goes on to actually molest a child. Not everyone who drives drunk gets into an accident or kills someone either. In fact, most of the time, people who drive while impaired will not have an accident or get caught But we still maintain and enforce DWI laws as necessary for the general welfare, and as a way of preventing accidents, and part of the intention of child pornography possession laws is to prevent further potential harm to children in the community. Just as alcoholics are considered responsible for their actions when they chose to drink and drive, pedophiles are responsible for their actions when they choose to possess illegal child pornography. Both alcoholics and pedophiles may claim they are driven by compulsions, but both are also obligated to seek treatment for their problems rather than break the law. And, as the law stands now, possession of child pornography is illegal, and most people want it to remain that way.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:32 pm
@JTT,
I said-Quote:
Quote:
I work in a prison. I know that the majority of people (men, at least) who are in prison have either mental illness, addictive tendencies or both. Prisons are the new mental institutions - they're also where drug users are sent for enforced rehab- without medical or psychiatric support.

JTT asked:
Quote:
And this is a good thing?

And I'm answering:
No, it's a bad thing-with no end to the madness in sight-we've gotten it very, very wrong.
At this point, starting all over and focusing on early intervention and prevention of abuse seem to offer our only hope.
No bout adoubt it ...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:40 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Both alcoholics and pedophiles may claim they are driven by compulsions, but both are also obligated to seek treatment for their problems rather than break the law.


Do you think that society affords equal provision for those who wanted to seek treatment, Firefly?

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:49 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
You got it. I Have no use for perverts but by the same token I have no use for laws against thought crimes of things which don't rise more than a half a step above thought crime.


Actually, he don't got it. Possessing child porn would entail that a person went beyond thinking about it. That person either made the stuff themself or acquired it from someone else. Both are crimes.

Quote:
Aside from that there are simply too many ways some computer virus could load a computer up with banned images while the owner was off fishing or at work.


My guess is that a computer virus would be detectable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:02:13