Paedophilia

[Mr Manifesto]

About six years ago, I was living with three other people. They all had one thing in common: they were all abused as children.

The only difference was who the abuser was: one was abused by her older brother, another by his uncle, and another by her father. This last was the worst. Not just because she was my girlfriend at the time, addicted to being abused (she wanted me to rape her, hit her, things like that. Don't worry, I didn't), but the details were, to me, hard to handle.

She told me about how she painted the door to her bedroom so it would make a noise when it opened. One day she came home from school to find her father stripping the paint off the door, gleefully announcing that it would fix the problem of it making the noise. After being abused a few more times, she painted the door again.

Now, the visceral part of me wanted to do some damage to this girl's father. Of course, that would solve nothing. The more intellectual side of me wanted to know what causes this, and can it be cured?

Well, it seems that a root cause is not forthcoming. For example, this (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/12/ch1.pdf) article (PDF format) says:

Although this is a question often asked by courts,
governments and community agencies, it is one
which is least likely to receive, or need, an answer.
Various theories suggest specific biological, social,
developmental and psychological factors, or a
combination of any or all of them (see, for example,
Marshall 1989). It is doubtful whether an ultimate
“cause” for paedophilia will be discovered; this is
regrettable but, pragmatically speaking, it is not
necessary. As will be described later, there are
already effective ways of dealing with the problem
which only require appropriate resourcing and
coordination to achieve a massive decrease in the
number of current and potential victims.
From the point of view of the therapist, it is
positively dangerous to ask an offender to
contemplate why he has offended. Such questions
inevitably produce a long list of excuses for his
behaviour rather than any effective plans to do
something about it (Glaser 1996).


I don't see why it is 'positively dangerous' to ask for motives for something like this, but then I'm not a psychaitrist. More interesting again is the author's assertion that 'why' is 'least likely to... need an answer'. This person, at least, seems to think that motive is irrelevant.

After reading Suddenly's posts, and, of course, after reading numerous examples of paedophiles who seem unrepetant and unwilling to rehabilitate (and indeed after seeing the antics of one ex-poster who shall remain nameless), it also seems that a 'cure' may be out of our grasp as well.

But this all seems a little pessimistic. What I would like is the experience of those in JREF (for quite a few people in this forum have dealt directly with the issue) to be consolidated in one thread. I'd like to see ideas, theories, even just rants (something we see little of in this forum, I know), to see if we can get some idea of whether a motive is possible to discern, or a root cause, and to see if a cure, or at least treatment, of the problem is possible.

So... Let it rip.

[Tmy]

I resent pedophila being treated as a disease. Like that somehow removes culpabilty from the perp. "Im sick" is such a cop out.

We all have urges and impulses that we have to keep under control. Why throughout the day I resist the urge to punch people in the face! If you like little kids, too bad for you. Try wacking off to Toys R Us catalog to deal with your urge. Just dont expect me to excuse a perp molesting some kid.

Just cause ya cant get laid doesnt give you the ok to rape.

[aerocontrols]

You would probably get more informed responses in the Science forum.

[Luke T.]

My first wife was repeatedly raped by her uncle over a period of years starting when she was 9 or 10, I believe. And then her uncle's son (her cousin). They threatened to kill her if she told anyone. On top of that, she was molested by her older stepbrother.

Her uncle had been imprisoned for this kind of thing before he got his hands on her. The whole family knew it, and yet allowed him to be alone with her.

We were several years into our marriage before I got the whole story out of her. I had taken her to god knows how many shrinks in the meantime. She had gotten to the point that she was holed up in the bedroom all the time, with heavy curtains, plastic bags and tin foil over the windows to keep out the light.

I used to fantasize about meeting her uncle at a family reunion and expressed my fantasies out loud to her family. They made sure he and I never met.

Her older stepbrother had voluntarily gotten help for his problem, without ever being caught and forced to, and had done his best to make up what he did to her. Him, I had no problem with.

I tell you what pedophilia is. It's all about control. Domination. That's it. A weak willed person who can't hold their own with adults and feels the need to dominate.

Done.

[Cleopatra]

Mr.Manifesto.

I suggest you post specific questions in which the posters have to answer.

Also I encourage you to moderate your thread with a heavy hand if you want it to be of some essence.It's tiring but it worths the pain.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.
My first wife was repeatedly raped by her uncle over a period of years starting when she was 9 or 10, I believe. And then her uncle's son (her cousin). They threatened to kill her if she told anyone. On top of that, she was molested by her older stepbrother.

Her uncle had been imprisoned for this kind of thing before he got his hands on her. The whole family knew it, and yet allowed him to be alone with her.

We were several years into our marriage before I got the whole story out of her. I had taken her to god knows how many shrinks in the meantime. She had gotten to the point that she was holed up in the bedroom all the time, with heavy curtains, plastic bags and tin foil over the windows to keep out the light.

I used to fantasize about meeting her uncle at a family reunion and expressed my fantasies out loud to her family. They made sure he and I never met.

Her older stepbrother had voluntarily gotten help for his problem, without ever being caught and forced to, and had done his best to make up what he did to her. Him, I had no problem with.

Well that, at least, is encouraging. Until now, I'd never heard of anyone actually voluntarily seeking help for that sort of problem.



I tell you what pedophilia is. It's all about control. Domination. That's it. A weak willed person who can't hold their own with adults and feels the need to dominate.

Done.

I agree, although I find the term 'weak willed' problematic. This would explain the 'cycle of paedophila'. My ex-girlfriend's father was an unemployed coal miner with a major drinking problem who was also into wife beating (he did weekend jail for it, but did the wife leave him? None of that.).

Some say that there is a link between poverty and paedophilia, the most common kind- against family members.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
I resent pedophila being treated as a disease. Like that somehow removes culpabilty from the perp. "Im sick" is such a cop out. We all have urges and impulses that we have to keep under control.

Just out of curiosity, what if someone is sexually attracted to children, but does keep it under control? After seeing all the pedo sex stories on the net, there are obviously a lot of people in that category. Is it a disease then? Or is it healthy? Doesn't matter as long as they keep it to themselves?

It's a very interesting issue. There's some debate, I recall, as to whether stories, art, and animation of kids in sexual situations should legally count as "child porn," since no children were actually involved.

Is *philia about actions or attitudes? Which one is the thing that makes it unethical?

Jeremy

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by toddjh

Is *philia about actions or attitudes? Which one is the thing that makes it unethical?


Are movies, books or games that involve violence unethical?

[Rolfe]

There was a case in Dundee relevant to this last point. A man had a perfectly innocent picture of some children playing. He put it on his computer and altered it with an imaging package to become an indecent paedophile picture. He never showed it to anyone, and he never put it on the Internet. If he had accessed any kiddie porn on the Internet, this was not mentioned in the press reports.

However, his wife was working on the computer one day, and found the image. She called the cops. (It wasn't clear to me whether she realised it was "art-work" and not a picture of a real event when she did this.) The man was charged.

He was found guilty and the sheriff was very critical of him as a serious offender. He was sent to prison for (I think) two years.

I was very uncomfortable with this verdict. He hadn't harmed any children, he hadn't corrupted anyone else, he had only created a private piece of "art" with the intention of keeping it to himself. Was the verdict fair, or was this too close to policing someone's thoughts?

Rolfe.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Are movies, books or games that involve violence unethical?

No, but it has been shown that there is no (or very low) correlation between people watching/playing things that involve violence, and commiting violence themselves. In order to draw the parallel to pedophilia, there'd have to be a similar correlation. Maybe there is, I don't know. But your position is that sexual attraction to children is not inherently dangerous, then?

Edited to add: That last sentence sounded inflammatory, but I didn't mean it that way. I'm undecided on the issue myself.

Jeremy

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by toddjh

But your position is that sexual attraction to children is not inherently dangerous, then?



I would say it is worrisome, but not unethical. I would say the same thing about someone who desires any sort of antisocial activity, but never acts upon it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well Rolfe the SCOTUS has decided that "virtual" kiddie porn is not illegal, as for the real thing.................

I have done some work for a volunteer organization, Condemd.org that tracks and alerts the police to sites that engage if trafficking of child porn. I also enjoy trolling for scum by posting virus scripts with salacious names on BBS's and Kazza sites. This has become more difficult to accomplish because the use of anonymous proxy servers and firewalls.

I will tell you this I would be the first person in line , and I mean this to the core of my being, To castrate these sick f**ks with a carpet knife if given the opportunity.

I have seen things that have made me weep and want to tear out my hair, just in link sites and "preview" pages. I am a father of a teenage girl and the past week with the abduction of Carlie Brucia has given me nightmares . I am not a prude but to prey upon the most helpless of our own is a sordid take on the state of the human animal.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Rolfe

I was very uncomfortable with this verdict. He hadn't harmed any children, he hadn't corrupted anyone else, he had only created a private piece of "art" with the intention of keeping it to himself. Was the verdict fair, or was this too close to policing someone's thoughts?

Rolfe.

This seems very odd and surprising indeed. Without a detailed trial report it is impossible to comment but I am surprised that the creation of an image from innocuous materials should lead to a conviction in the absence of publication.

Reminds me of an antique shop in Richmond (W. London ) where I used to live. I saw a silver letter opener in the window with a very strange cast handle. On looking closer I realised the handle showed two boys intertwined and enjoying oral sex. I wonder if they still sell them?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
I also enjoy trolling for scum by posting virus scripts with salacious names on BBS's and Kazza sites. This has become more difficult to accomplish because the use of anonymous proxy servers and firewalls.



You DO know that this is illegal, right?

[Pyrrho]

Personally, I'd like to gently remind people to be careful of how much private and personal information you reveal online. Be sure of your anonymity.

[Clancie]

Posted by WildCat

I was very uncomfortable with this verdict. He hadn't harmed any children, he hadn't corrupted anyone else, he had only created a private piece of "art" with the intention of keeping it to himself. Was the verdict fair, or was this too close to policing someone's thoughts?
Two years for a completely victimless "crime"? It sounds completely unfair to me.

What is the definition of what kind of nudity...of sexual material, etc. adults can legally and illegally view? This man had a sexual interest outside the societal norm, but shouldn't he be able to pursue it in the privacy of his home, since it affects absolutely no one else?

I can't imagine why he was convicted for enjoying pictures he created (and didn't distribute) on his own computer.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Well that, at least, is encouraging. Until now, I'd never heard of anyone actually voluntarily seeking help for that sort of problem.

More common than you would think. Problem is by the time someone figures out they have a problem they already are facing some serious legal difficulties, and there are those (--cough--- Tmy--- cough---) that see this as a simplistic issue and will want the evildoer punished, so most people who aren't stupid don't try to get help as realistically the "help" they are going to get is a prison term.

Even if they do figure their wires are crossed before they commit a serious felony, it isn't exactly a problem most are going feel real comfortable admitting. "Yes doctor, I want to diddle children, I can barely help myself." Sounds like a good way to get your butt seriously kicked if that little story ever gets out.

Sooner or later, maybe because of intense shame, some sort of cognitive dissonance sets in. Many convicted pedophiles seem to honestly believe they were "helping" their victims by showing them what grown-ups are like.

I agree, although I find the term 'weak willed' problematic. This would explain the 'cycle of paedophila'. My ex-girlfriend's father was an unemployed coal miner with a major drinking problem who was also into wife beating (he did weekend jail for it, but did the wife leave him? None of that.).

Some say that there is a link between poverty and paedophilia, the most common kind- against family members.

As far as cycles of pedophilia go...

I heard a theory from an "expert" on pedophilia at a Defense Lawyers' seminar last summer. The details are hazy as I haven't had occasion to explore this theory.

Basically, it had to do with how young children react to trauma, that they aren't able to vocalize it, but rather they have to express it through other means, usually creative means. This usually takes two forms, one is drawing pictures, the other is "acting out," where the child physically simulates what happened. The expert mentioned that these acts aren't usually completely voluntary, as they are connected with a dissociative (sp?) state.

An example she gave was some case where a busload of kids was hijacked by some nut that buried the children alive. The survivors for quite a while after that would during otherwise normal play attempt to bury their playmates.

So, the general theory is that some people who themselves are victims of sex abuse as children for some reason or another fail to stop acting out, even into adulthood. They occasionally disassociate and act out the childhood trauma. The expert detailed what that experience would be like, she likened it to watching yourself do something from the corner of the room. It appears a significant number of pedophiles report similar experiences when describing their crimes. That or they are telling the interviewer what the interviewer wants to hear.

This could all be B.S. of course. I've never seen it tested, and even if the science is solid, good luck getting a jury to really care.

[Earthborn]

I believe before we can have a meaningful discussion about something, we'll have to know what we are talking about. Already there is some confusion in this thread because some people are talking about people who actually raped children and others are speaking of people who feel sexually attracted to children and make computer images.

I propose to distinguish between the following rough categories:

Child Lovers: people who feel attracted to children in amouros or sexual way. These people might fall in love with a child like a heterosexual falls in love with someone of the opposite sex. Some of these people become obsessed about the beauty of children and start idolizing them. They might also be frustrated by the fact that having a relationship with a child is not tolerated in our society, but generally they mean no harm to children.

Their worst crimes might be: challenging society's justifications for intolerance towards adult-child relationships, collecting innocent pictures of naked children, or editing innocent pictures.

Many of them actively seek therapy in the hope they might be cured, or can cope with their feelings better. They are also the most likely to respond well to therapy, but not to blame-and-shame or aversion therapies that are likely to make them feel worse about themselves.

I think the best way to deal with these people is trying to accept that they exist, that they have feelings like everybody else and give them some sort of therapy that makes them feel confident that they can live a happy, but celibate, life.

Child Seducers: If these people were heterosexual, we'd call them Casanovas or Don Juans: people who smoothtalk people into having sex with them, but are only doing it for their own sexual gratification. I think we can all agree that making all sorts of wonderful promises to get someone into bed, but then leaving the person after the sex act is over to do the same trick to another, is not respectable behaviour. The person left behind will feel used and cheated.
But when it is done to a child, it is much worse, especially if the child is so young that it hasn't developed a sexual identity of its own yet. This development might become disturbed as it will have the association of sex with betrayal from childhood.

The sex acts these people are after are generally not physically damaging, and these people might have a hard time comprehending that they are doing anything wrong. However, I think society should make it clear to these people that this behaviour is unacceptable. We could do that by giving them therapy of some kind when they do wrong, encourage them to seek therapy if they haven't done anything wrong yet but think they might, and if necessary isolating them from the rest of society if repeat offenses are likely. I think aversion therapies are more likely to frustrate them even more and are not advisable. I also think that it would be wrong to make someone choose between therapy and a prison sentence, because it will mean this person will most likely choose the therapy and we run the risk that he can repeat the crime. If we consider someone a grave enough threat to give jailtime, the best course of action is by isolating this person from the rest of the population, preferably in a secure clinic where he can also be treated. I see little reason to make the life of such a person any more miserable than that, doing so would probably mean the treatment becomes ineffective, it won't make anything better. But keeping him away from children should be priority no. 1.

Child Rapists: These people have no consideration for the feelings of children whatsoever. Some of them might indeed be accurately described as 'monsters', or at least as deeply disturbed people. Luckily, this is also the smallest group. If we assume that the numbers are similar to other sexual preferences, close to 90% of people who might be described as pedophiles can be called 'child lovers', and not more than 10% is a child seducer, leaving only very small number of child rapists. The small number does however not reflect the damage these people might do, which is tremendous.

It is also a bit misleading to use the numbers like that. Since a majority of men who rape other men (for example in prison) is not homosexual, we can assume that child rapists are probably not pedophile. They don't feel attracted to children specifically, they dont fall in love with them. Instead they use rape as a way to humiliate someone, or purely because they seek quick sexual gratification with anyone that is available and easy to control.

As Luke said: "I tell you what pedophilia is. It's all about control. Domination. That's it." This is basically true of all rape, and it is about control of anyone they can get their hands on. Children are unfortunately often an easier target. A child rapist might have a sexual preference for children, but this is not strictly necessary. This makes it misleading to call these people 'pedophiles', since for them children may just be an easily obtainable 'vehicle' for releasing some sexual of violent frustration.

Dealing with child rapists is undoubtedly the toughest. I fully sympathise with anyone who feels they should all be castrated, or worse. Unfortunately castration is not as effective as people make it out to be: it doesn't make sexual feelings go away, and certainly not sexual frustrations. In most cases, it doesn't even make someone fully impotent. I think castration (chemical or otherwise) should be available as an option to any sexually frustrated person if they think it might help them control their urges better, but we should not see it as a cure all. It can not be a subsitute for therapy and cannot be relied upon as a protection against repeat offense. Yes, it is cruel too, but that is not my main concern. Cruelty that doesn't do what it is supposed to do (and it almost never does, and is often counterproductive) is worse than the cruelty itself.

Until we can fully manipulate all feelings and behaviours of people, isolating these people from any area where they might do harm is probably the only option. Since child rapists are not necessarily pedophile, this is hard. Just keeping them away from children is probably not enough as they might seek the next easiest target.

Therapy is not likely to cure such people, however people often forget that we really need to study them to try to find out what has caused these people to become so dangerous. This is not to find an excuse for their behaviour, it is to find a way to prevent something similar to happen to another, in the hope that they will not become child rapist too. I don't think we can afford to miss a chance to break the cycle.

[Soapy Sam]

If someone can give me a testable definition of "art", I'll tell you if paedophile pornography is artistic. I think the same might be said of any pornography- it shades into art at one end and filth at the other. The question is where are you as an observer on the spectrum?

Assuming there is any connection between interest in paedophile porn and actual paedophile bahaviour, is it a positive or negative connection? (Most hetero porn does not lead to rape: It leads to masturbation. )If that is true in paedophiles, then computer generated porn which involves no abuse of real children would seem to be beneficial to real children. (Presumably also to the users, though I am insufficiently broad minded to care)

Paedophilia as a practice is something else. Children require protection. Trusted adults are supposed to merit that trust, not abuse it. Of course morality is arbitrary, but it has to start with some assumptions. I hold this truth to be self evident; that sexual abuse of children is to be discouraged and punished. Severely.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam


Assuming there is any connection between interest in paedophile porn and actual paedophile bahaviour, is it a positive or negative connection? (Most hetero porn does not lead to rape: It leads to masturbation. )If that is true in paedophiles, then computer generated porn which involves no abuse of real children would seem to be beneficial to real children. (Presumably also to the users, though I am insufficiently broad minded to care)



The problem with a straight "adult porn v. kiddy porn" analogy is that not all the acts depicted in the adult porn are illegal. Any sexual activity involving a child is illegal, so a straighter analogy would be to consider porn depicting rape. In fact, if we are talking about non CGI porn it would have to be scenes of actual, not just simulated rape.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Valmorian



You DO know that this is illegal, right? [/B]

Yes, but somehow I don't see any of them complaining.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

She told me about how she painted the door to her bedroom so it would make a noise when it opened. One day she came home from school to find her father stripping the paint off the door, gleefully announcing that it would fix the problem of it making the noise. After being abused a few more times, she painted the door again.
Guy like that should just be shot. He's of no use to anybody including himself.
People who look at fake child porn, well ok, but keep it to yourself. I think it's best to demonize it. Keep people afraid to act on these impulses, let them know the rest of us think it's wrong and that we hate them. I don't think anyone who rapes a kid should ever be free again, even on the first offense.
NAMBLA needs a collective kick in the nuts. We shouldn't let anyone legitimize this or make excuses.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy
I resent pedophila being treated as a disease. Like that somehow removes culpabilty from the perp. "Im sick" is such a cop out.

We all have urges and impulses that we have to keep under control. Why throughout the day I resist the urge to punch people in the face! If you like little kids, too bad for you. Try wacking off to Toys R Us catalog to deal with your urge. Just dont expect me to excuse a perp molesting some kid.

Just cause ya cant get laid doesnt give you the ok to rape.
Not only admittedly, and proudly, doesn't read links, but doesn't understand the difference between understanding and solving cause, and absolving from responsibility.
Like "Just Say No", not a solution, just a simple minded, simplistic short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Brian
NAMBLA needs a collective kick in the nuts. We shouldn't let anyone legitimize this or make excuses.

Just remember, though, that the line between "boy" and "man" is to some extent arbitrary and culturally determined. As is the line between "girl" and "woman". Perfectly civilised states differ on whether you are old enough to give sexual consent at 14, 16, 18 or 21. Not to mention on whether queer, kinky and/or homosexual acts should be treated differently.

If there was solid, cross-cultural data to show that it was Objectively Bad for people to have consensual sex at 14, or 16, or 18, then I could be talked into accepting such lines as moral absolutes. But there is no such data. So if some outfit like NAMBLA says "It should not be illegal for fourteen year old boys to have consensual sexual relations", well, they might be right and they might be wrong but you can't prove it either way.

For fun, try substituting "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen" and so on into that sentence and see when you personally start agreeing with it.

I believe the well-known columnist Dan Savage is quite up-front about the fact that he was having sex with a much older man at 15 (from memory) and he has nothing but happy memories of the affair.

So kicking NAMBLA in the nuts might be unreasonable. Then again it might not. I had a look at their web site, which is something I would not be keen to do from work, and I could not find any kind of FAQ or official policy statement on what they think the relevant laws should be. Just a lot of stuff vaguely in favour of legalising sex with underage boys, including pictures and references to boys who were or looked very underage. So who knows what their real agenda is? They certainly don't make it clear, which does invite suspicion.

[Bottle or the Gun]

A few years ago a woman parked her car in a mall parking lot. She recalls parking next to a white van. When she returned to her car the adjacent spot was empty except for a photograph. The photograph was of two children tied up and in a room. The FBI were able to identify one of the children as a known abduction victim, but at the time did not know who the other one was. In my mind, I do not believe that the photo was dropped by accident. I believe that it was placed there by a sadist to cause further anguish, if only to the person who found the photo. I saw the story 2 years ago (on A&E or Discovery) and I still consider it to be one of those things that I can't 'unsee'.

And some people want pedophiles treated as if they are ill and can be rehabilitated. No, just throw away the key and I'll let my taxes pick up the tab.

Most cities have an on-line database of sex-offenders. Type in your address and see what comes up.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Just remember, though, that the line between "boy" and "man" is to some extent arbitrary and culturally determined. As is the line between "girl" and "woman". Perfectly civilised states differ on whether you are old enough to give sexual consent at 14, 16, 18 or 21. Not to mention on whether queer, kinky and/or homosexual acts should be treated differently.

If there was solid, cross-cultural data to show that it was Objectively Bad for people to have consensual sex at 14, or 16, or 18, then I could be talked into accepting such lines as moral absolutes. But there is no such data. So if some outfit like NAMBLA says "It should not be illegal for fourteen year old boys to have consensual sexual relations", well, they might be right and they might be wrong but you can't prove it either way.

For fun, try substituting "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen" and so on into that sentence and see when you personally start agreeing with it.

I believe the well-known columnist Dan Savage is quite up-front about the fact that he was having sex with a much older man at 15 (from memory) and he has nothing but happy memories of the affair.

So kicking NAMBLA in the nuts might be unreasonable. Then again it might not. I had a look at their web site, which is something I would not be keen to do from work, and I could not find any kind of FAQ or official policy statement on what they think the relevant laws should be. Just a lot of stuff vaguely in favour of legalising sex with underage boys, including pictures and references to boys who were or looked very underage. So who knows what their real agenda is? They certainly don't make it clear, which does invite suspicion.
What you say is very reasonable. It's hard to draw a line. I still think we should err on the side of caution and demonize NAMBLA, make them feel like hated freaks. If we don't push the line in one direction, they'll push it in the other. I'm sure there are people out there who think having sex with an 8 year old is a perfectly natural thing.
Now that I think of it I guess I am off topic. We're talking about age of consent, the issue is rape.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Clancie
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by WildCat

I was very uncomfortable with this verdict. He hadn't harmed any children, he hadn't corrupted anyone else, he had only created a private piece of "art" with the intention of keeping it to himself. Was the verdict fair, or was this too close to policing someone's thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, it wasn't posted by me! That was Rolfe.

Using the "quote" button will keep these mistakes from happening. ;)

[nightwind]

TillEulenspiegel, I noticed that in your posts, you indicated that you actively post virus, to the internet, via Kazaa, etc.

Are you currently engaged in this? And what virus are you currently posting?

[Clancie]

Posted by WildCat

No, it wasn't posted by me! That was Rolfe.

Using the "quote" button will keep these mistakes from happening. :)

Oops, remembering the wrong cat avatar. Well, anyway, Rolfe, I thought it was a good point. :)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Suddenly


The problem with a straight "adult porn v. kiddy porn" analogy is that not all the acts depicted in the adult porn are illegal. Any sexual activity involving a child is illegal, so a straighter analogy would be to consider porn depicting rape. In fact, if we are talking about non CGI porn it would have to be scenes of actual, not just simulated rape.

This isn't 100% correct... In many areas, the age of consent for sex is younger than the age that they can be in pr0n. So, in theory a person could legally 'date' a 16 year old, and it wouldn't be 'rape'. (As long as no pictures were taken.)

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


I also enjoy trolling for scum by posting virus scripts with salacious names on BBS's and Kazza sites. This has become more difficult to accomplish because the use of anonymous proxy servers and firewalls.



I will tell you this I would be the first person in line , and I mean this to the core of my being, To castrate these sick f**ks with a carpet knife if given the opportunity.


Ironic.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by subgenius

Not only admittedly, and proudly, doesn't read links, but doesn't understand the difference between understanding and solving cause, and absolving from responsibility.
Like "Just Say No", not a solution, just a simple minded, simplistic short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

Well put.

Maybe I should be a little more direct about this sort of thing.

Demonizing pedophiles is shown over and over to be worthless in discouraging the behaviour. Be it scorn from society or likely maltreatment in prison or threatened torture and mutilation. Just doesn't work.


What it does do is give people a reason to do two things. First is denial that there is a problem. Those that would perhaps seek treatment or measures to prevent future occurances will not. They just seethe, promise themselves not to do it again, and like true addicts line up more victims, or continue to victimize those close. End result: more abuse.

The second thing it does is give reason for those engaged in such behaviour to take drastic steps from being caught. Leave no witnesses. End result: random kidnappings and dead children.

Of course, this does not describe all possible cases. When dealing with persons with impuse control problems who also have for some reason a sexual obsession with small children, both which can have organic causes, the circumstances above are very, very relevent.

Thus, one could argue that the hard line "all pedophiles are evil that should be tortured and killed" attitude brings about more innocent victims, not less. Not that this attitude is the main or even proximate cause of the additional abuse, but a case that it is a but/for cause can be made. Whether culpability should also apply is less clear.

Now, this isn't absolving these persons, nor is it apologizing for their behaviour. It is simply pointing out how simply treating these people as "evil" rather than trying to understand the root cause can have bad effects. We make ourselves perhaps feel better by aggressively being vengeful and punishing these people for their hideous acts, and the price of this theraputic vengence is the added suffering of those we claim to want to protect.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Valmorian



You DO know that this is illegal, right? [/B]

That was a typo, should have read " I WOULD enjoy..." the dropped word changes the meaning significantly and since as you pointed out that it is illegal I would never engage in such risky behavior. Sorry for the confusion.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


That was a typo, should have read " I WOULD enjoy..." the dropped word changes the meaning significantly and since as you pointed out that it is illegal I would never engage in such risky behavior. Sorry for the confusion.

But you are aware of the change in difficulty due to proxy-servers and firewalls...

That's a lot of knowledge for this imagined behavior.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Brian
NAMBLA needs a collective kick in the nuts. We shouldn't let anyone legitimize this or make excuses. What do you have against the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes? :)

Earthborn, nice post. I agree that finer distinctions need to be made between "pedophile" and "not". For example, I tend to believe that Michael Jackson is a member of the first category. This makes it difficult for me to answer people when they ask, "Guilty or not?".

[wollery]

Originally posted by Rolfe
There was a case in Dundee relevant to this last point. A man had a perfectly innocent picture of some children playing. He put it on his computer and altered it with an imaging package to become an indecent paedophile picture. He never showed it to anyone, and he never put it on the Internet. If he had accessed any kiddie porn on the Internet, this was not mentioned in the press reports.

However, his wife was working on the computer one day, and found the image. She called the cops. (It wasn't clear to me whether she realised it was "art-work" and not a picture of a real event when she did this.) The man was charged.

He was found guilty and the sheriff was very critical of him as a serious offender. He was sent to prison for (I think) two years.

I was very uncomfortable with this verdict. He hadn't harmed any children, he hadn't corrupted anyone else, he had only created a private piece of "art" with the intention of keeping it to himself. Was the verdict fair, or was this too close to policing someone's thoughts?

Rolfe. As I understand the law from a documentary I saw (about a year ago) any image is considered illegal unless it is completely devoid of any elements from an actual photograph. This means that in the case of a computer image all of the pixels would have to be altered for the image to be considered legal.

Whilst I agree to a certain extent that this is bordering on thought policing you have to draw a line somewhere between what is and isn't legal. So the question then becomes how much alteration is allowable, and how private the storage facilities are. This guy altered some, but not all of the photo, so we can probably assume that the faces of the children were still recognizable, and stored it on a computer to which at least one other person had access.