Roman Catholic Church's Paedophile Investigator Jailed for Possession of Child Porn

Church Paedophile Investigator Jailed

Roughly 4,389. Most of them of pre-pubescent boys.

Just read the article I honestly am both speechless and nauseated. There has to be a special circle of Hell reserved for people like this.

Someone explain this to me: is there something about Catholocism specifically that just makes children irresistable? How many rabbis or imams have been caught in such scandals? Is it the little cherub paintings on the ceiling? That must be it. Those damned dirty cherubs...

Sakurelf wrote:

Someone explain this to me: is there something about Catholocism specifically that just makes children irresistable? How many rabbis or imams have been caught in such scandals? Is it the little cherub paintings on the ceiling? That must be it. Those damned dirty cherubs...

This guy isn't even a member of the clergy. He's a married man with four children of his own who was apparently chosen by the church to follow-up on molestation cases.

I think that part of the problem is that they forbid the Priests to marry. While you do get the occasional scandal in Protestant churches, I honestly think that expecting a healthy man (or woman, for that matter) to stay celibate their entire life IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGION is just asking for trouble. And given the fact that the church keeps covering it up (something I don't think they'd do if the Priests involved were having relationships with, say, adult women), they are, in their own way, sort of tacitly endorsing it. The attitude seems to be that it's not that damaging to the child, especially if their young, and they'll get over it. As someone who worked for a woman who dealt with not just children who'd been sexually abused, but adult survivors, many of whom had never told anyone what happened, that's just not how it works. That sort of thing stays with you your entire life.

Also, the Priests are in a position of absolute power where the children are concerned. They have the Pope (and ergo, the Word of God) on their side.

PS: I don't know about Musim Imans, but Rabbi's are allowed to marry. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church is the only major religion that requires its ministers and teachers (Priests, Nuns and Monks) to take a vow of celibacy.

Sakurelf wrote:

Someone explain this to me: is there something about Catholocism specifically that just makes children irresistable? How many rabbis or imams have been caught in such scandals? Is it the little cherub paintings on the ceiling? That must be it. Those damned dirty cherubs...

I've heard of the odd rabbi caught in such a scandal, but I think Catholics attract media attention faster now. Their blood's been in the water for awhile over this, mostly for entirely deserved reasons. Plus it has to do with the country in question; Catholicism is still fairly common in the West, but for Islam... a lot of Middle Eastern countries don't see a problem with pederasty to begin with, so it's not like we'd ever hear about it.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

Someone explain this to me: is there something about Catholocism specifically that just makes children irresistable? How many rabbis or imams have been caught in such scandals? Is it the little cherub paintings on the ceiling? That must be it. Those damned dirty cherubs...

This guy isn't even a member of the clergy. He's a married man with four children of his own who was apparently chosen by the church to follow-up on molestation cases.

Surprise! It turns out the magic cure for pedophilia isn't vagina!

So this clergyman walks into a celibate order to get chicks...

I'll let you finish that sentence for yourself.

Pedophilia and abstinence don't have a thing to do with the molestation charges that keep cropping up in the Church. Or any child molestation for that matter, no matter how often people keep trying to blame it. Buddhist monks and nuns live in celibacy as well, by the way, and I'm pretty sure Buddhism counts as a major religion, considering it's the fourth largest. (Christianity is the first, Islam the second, and Hinduism the third)

Child molesters, as demonstrated by this example, can be married with children. Doesn't really fit the "suppression" excuse, does it? And a lot of child molesters molest their own children. The children they got through sex. Child molesters like having power over someone, the same way a rapist does. Guess who has a lot of power in most communities?

How one leads to the other though, is more hazy. Do more people with power urges like that (Which don't always manifest as child molestation) join the priesthood because of that granted power? Or does having that power go to people's heads, people who already had a compulsion?

The Catholic Church is wrong for covering it up, don't get me wrong. To ever behave as those saving your own skin was more important than a child's welfare is reprehensible for a member of the clergy.

But to act as though the whole of it is a bunch of paedophilic rapists isn't right either, and to dismiss an important value of the religion, abstinence for those devoted to God, a value that isn't even exclusive to Catholicism, isn't fair. Members of the Church are abstinent because they feel that by sacrificing worldly pleasures, like being able to take a spouse and have children, they are able to devote their hearts and mind fully to God and their congregation, and it's not a choice taken lightly. This is one of the reasons why monks, nuns, and the father are so revered by the community. They have given up things that most people couldn't, in order to bring "glory to God".

The corruption in the Church at the higher level is disgusting though. Possession of child porn indicates actual paedophilia, not a molester. None of the priests brought up on molestation charges should have been allowed to remain in charge of a congregation, and if the Catholic Church was afraid of losing face by defrocking them, they should have sent them to a monastery, and at least taken care of the more pressing problem, instead of shuffling them around like they've done. They are breaching their trust with the community, telling them they don't care, as long as they don't have to make a difficult decision, and that's wrong. They are supposed to be the spiritual leaders, and people should be able to trust them.

How does Vatican City work, by laws? Are they really a sovereign nation, or is Italy technically in charge? Because I don't think the higher ups can be trusted to actually be honest in this investigation, even if they themselves are innocent. It seems the urge to protect their own is greater than their duty to protect their congregation, and I don't trust them.

And this brings up the age-old and tired question of... why the fuck do these investigations have to remain internal and the police aren't allowed to be directly involved? Because last I checked, Catholic churches and monasteries weren't Vatican embassies where whatever fuckoff laws they have remain intact. Like being able to appoint whoever they feel like (eeny-meeny-miny-mo style) to look into this bullshit and be expected to impartially follow/enforce the law.

I think it's interesting that he was actually sentenced to prison instead of attempting a rehabilitation. And like Lapin said, possession of child porn (and I'm going to say especially THAT MUCH child porn) indicates a fetish bordering on sexual orientation. And we all know how trying to "fix" something that deeply ingrained in a person usually works out. (Hint: it doesn't.) Good on that judge. Now to hunt down the rest of the scumbags that made and distributed that material.

Lapin wrote:

It seems the urge to protect their own is greater than their duty to protect their congregation, and I don't trust them.

So, there's this school called Penn State...

Also, a more general question (probably been asked before, but hey): Do you consider pedophilia to be a mental illness? If it's a straight-up borth-that-way orientation, should those who are pedophiles go straight to jail, do-not-pass-go, even before they have acted in any way as a preventative measure?

I get that sending a criminal guilty of child pornography or child molestation to therapy to "fix" them is ridiculous, but what do you honestly do with people who feel aroused by children? Give them anti-libido meds? Euthanize them?

Sakurelf wrote:

Also, a more general question (probably been asked before, but hey): Do you consider pedophilia to be a mental illness? If it's a straight-up borth-that-way orientation, should those who are pedophiles go straight to jail, do-not-pass-go, even before they have acted in any way as a preventative measure?

I get that sending a criminal guilty of child pornography or child molestation to therapy to "fix" them is ridiculous, but what do you honestly do with people who feel aroused by children? Give them anti-libido meds? Euthanize them?

I was friends with a guy who came out to me as a pedo (he was about 20 at the time... and since it's probably relevant, I was I think 19?). Being a guy who I considered myself close friends with, and who I thought was a--more or less--upstanding citizen and all-around nice guy (or perhaps, in retrospect, Nice Guy™?), I really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to not let it change my relationship with him. He swore that he never touched a kid and was only interested in looking at loli, and so I chose to believe him, and see if we could move on from there. As time went on, he took my cautious acceptance of his situation to mean enthusiasm, and he started telling me more and more about thoughts he had, which, quite frankly, started to creep me out. I think it was about a year later, when he told me that some family came to visit. A 9 year old cousin was among the group, and he was telling me that he found her hot and that he'd fantasized about her, etc. etc. etc... guh, I really couldn't take much more after that and started breaking off the friendship.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it really just all depends on the person, as awful a policy that is when it comes to lawmaking. For some people, the fetish is debilitating, especially when they have no desire to break any laws or harm any children. For others, it's an insatiable, undeniable, all-consuming compulsion, like you'll find with some exhibitionists, and their sense of ethics and morality just doesn't even enter into the equation, even though they'll be likely to preach about good behavior and demonize bad behavior under any other circumstance. In all my time bouncing around sites and forums and cesspools places like fetlife, I've never seen anyone have a pedophilia "kink"... or like, a casual fetish about it. I've never in my life heard or read someone say "Dunno, some 8 year olds are hot.". It kind of seems like an all or nothing sort of situation. Which sucks. I have friends that are friends with that guy still (which absolutely kills me, because one of those friends works as a teacher for young children at a learning center, and is one of the most ardent children's rights proponents I know, but I can't tell her because I promised him that I wouldn't tell anyone), and they talk and keep up with him. He had a girlfriend for a couple years while he was still in school, but he didn't quite seem to know how to be in a relationship and it ended badly. Last I checked, he seemed pretty miserable with himself. He also seemed kind of incapable of love? Aromantic, I guess.

When it comes right down to it, he's the only person that knows if it's just a phase, or if it's central to who he is and will never go away. I know I've got some fetishes that you could never shock-therapy out of me, and if you did manage to, I'd be quite the lifeless shell. The difference between me and pedophiles is that my fetishes don't make me a potential threat to others. That's where the tricky problem is, and trying to preemptively correct or punish the pedophiles that haven't actually broken any laws because of the ones that do, is just as dangerous a policy. We can't treat all of them as subhuman slavering beasts indiscriminately. I wasn't going to treat that friend like one, because I trusted that he never did anything horrible, and if he was going to, then my being friends with him was probably not going to prevent it in any way. I guess the only good thing that could have come out of that relationship is the tiny possibility that he would have told me that he'd committed a heinous crime (in the tiny offchance that he actually would), in which case I would be in a position to report him. I'm not sure I have it in me to maintain a friendship with someone just to keep tabs on them like that. Especially when the conversations sometimes turned toward the incredibly unsavory.

So with that information and personal experience in mind, I think tossing him in the slammer is, unfortunately, the best option we have available.

I think it is an illness, but some pedophiles actually manage not to act on it in a way damaging to an actual child. They deserve the chance to, I think, liberty over safety and all that. For those that know it is wrong and try not to act on it, possibly counseling or the like could help? A good mental healthcare foundation could go a long way in preventing kiddie rape, I think. It is a shame it has been so crippled in the states..

Reminds me of that one guy who was on talking about how he was going through the process of being chemically casterated because he was afraid he was going to rape his dog.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

I think it is an illness, but some pedophiles actually manage not to act on it in a way damaging to an actual child. They deserve the chance to, I think, liberty over safety and all that. For those that know it is wrong and try not to act on it, possibly counseling or the like could help? A good mental healthcare foundation could go a long way in preventing kiddie rape, I think. It is a shame it has been so crippled in the states..

Reminds me of that one guy who was on talking about how he was going through the process of being chemically casterated because he was afraid he was going to rape his dog.

Right, I completely forgot about chemical castration as well. It's definitely an option, and I think it should be in the toolkit of a professional healthcare provider or psychologist when someone goes to them with the worry that they might do something awful. As much as we don't go by it these days, I think this is definitely a case where we need to uphold the maxim of "innocent until proven guilty". While at the same time, I don't like the idea of lessening the stigma of pedophilia as a means to try and get more of them to seek help (doesn't seem that many of them are conflicted over their sexuality anyways), but I think chemical castration (it is pretty reversible) is a viable option that needs to be considered more as a preventative measure for those willing to do it of their own volition. But once they've committed that crime, I don't think they should have a say, and it should be done, even after their prison sentence. Having to report to a parole officer every 3 months about your depo shot is cumbersome, but... it's a very successful solution to the problem, which is to curb or obliterate the desire to commit the crime period.

Rabid Badger wrote:

I think that part of the problem is that they forbid the Priests to marry.

It's not that simple. This isn't a case of a natural sexual urge suppressed to the point of perversion. What made the Catholic Church a haven for child molesters was the position of the priest (and to a lesser extent, nuns and brothers) in the community. It was one of trust and it brought men into contact with children, particularly in places like Ireland where the school system was practically owned by the Catholic Church. The vows of celibacy also explained a lack of interest in sexual relationships with adults, which is one of the warning signs for a paedophile.

Sakurelf wrote:

Also, a more general question (probably been asked before, but hey): Do you consider pedophilia to be a mental illness? If it's a straight-up borth-that-way orientation, should those who are pedophiles go straight to jail, do-not-pass-go, even before they have acted in any way as a preventative measure?

No, that's ridiculous.

Quote :

I get that sending a criminal guilty of child pornography or child molestation to therapy to "fix" them is ridiculous

Actually, a study done in 2002 based on data from forty-three studies showed that treatment was effective in the short term in about 40% of cases. It's not a cure, but in a situation where you can't lock child molesters up for life, it's worth attempting.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Rabid Badger wrote:

I think that part of the problem is that they forbid the Priests to marry.

It's not that simple. This isn't a case of a natural sexual urge suppressed to the point of perversion. What made the Catholic Church a haven for child molesters was the position of the priest (and to a lesser extent, nuns and brothers) in the community. It was one of trust and it brought men into contact with children, particularly in places like Ireland where the school system was practically owned by the Catholic Church. The vows of celibacy also explained a lack of interest in sexual relationships with adults, which is one of the warning signs for a paedophile.

I totally agree. Paedophilia isn't caused by not being able to bone women, or every awkward 14-year-old would be a paedophile amirite
No but seriously, yeah.

Quote :

Sakurelf wrote:

Also, a more general question (probably been asked before, but hey): Do you consider pedophilia to be a mental illness? If it's a straight-up borth-that-way orientation, should those who are pedophiles go straight to jail, do-not-pass-go, even before they have acted in any way as a preventative measure?

No, that's ridiculous.

This I... don't agree with. Why is it ridiculous? If people are born attracted to women or men, why not children? The difference here is between "fetish" and "orientation", and the line between the two can blur considerably.

If you classify "orientation" as meaning that unless this sexual requirement (e.g. having sex with another woman) is met you can't feel sexually fulfilled, thousands of fetishes could be classed as this, from bondage to, yes, paedophilia. Can someone who can't feel fulfilled unless they are covered in jelly or [insert ridiculous fetish here] be 'cured'? Can someone who can't feel fulfilled unless they are tied up be 'cured'? Can someone who can't feel fulfilled unless they are hurting someone be 'cured'? Can someone who can't feel fulfilled unless they are having sex with someone dominant be 'cured'? Can someone who can't feel fulfilled unless they are having sex with someone of the same gender be 'cured'? Can someone who can't feel fulfilled unless they are having sex with someone much older be 'cured'? So then, can someone who can't feel fulfilled unless they are having sex with someone much, much younger be 'cured'?

I understand that I'm rather simplifying 'orientation' here, so; think of what you're attracted to, what kinds of people hit you in just the right way. How did you decide who to be attracted to? Was it a choice, or something you were born with? Now break down what makes those people attractive to you and take the most important. Imagine that, for whatever reason, you were never allowed to be attracted to someone with those traits, be they physical or mental. Imagine that those traits were so taboo you couldn't even tell anyone that's what you liked, and you had to surpress everything those kinds of people make you feel. Now you're a paedophile.

Quote :

Quote :

I get that sending a criminal guilty of child pornography or child molestation to therapy to "fix" them is ridiculous

Actually, a study done in 2002 based on data from forty-three studies showed that treatment was effective in the short term in about 40% of cases. It's not a cure, but in a situation where you can't lock child molesters up for life, it's worth attempting.

[/quote]

*snicker*

Cyberwulf wrote:

Actually, a study done in 2002 based on data from forty-three studies showed that treatment was effective in the short term in about 40% of cases. It's not a cure, but in a situation where you can't lock child molesters up for life, it's worth attempting.

Yeeah uh define "short term" and define "effective".

This sounds like a case of guilting the individual in question into hating themselves enough to stop looking at porn or beating off to pedo fantasies for a couple months. Then they get over it.

Seule wrote:

This I... don't agree with. Why is it ridiculous?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Cy was referring to locking up paedophiles who have yet to molest anyone being ridiculous.

Also, you know, perhaps treatment can help paedophiles redirect their urges to non-harmful activities? There are people who do want to be helped, we could at least try.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Seule wrote:

This I... don't agree with. Why is it ridiculous?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Cy was referring to locking up paedophiles who have yet to molest anyone being ridiculous.

Also, you know, perhaps treatment can help paedophiles redirect their urges to non-harmful activities? There are people who do want to be helped, we could at least try.

Whooooops

MY POINT STILL STANDS

But anyway, the whole treatment thing - I think where people are going wrong is assuming that something as inbuilt as paedophilia can be 'cured'. I guess it would be good for society in general to remember that there's actually quite a big difference between being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to prepubescent children) and actually raping a child. That's why I disagree so much with things like banning drawn child pornography - that's not hurting anybody, and stigmatising that as well only makes it harder for people who can't help themselves. I also think that just downloading child pornography should be punished slightly less severely - it's a buyer's market, yes, but giving the same sex offender status to someone who downloads illegal pornography as someone who rapes someone...

Anyway, in short I agree with you, just any chance to rant etc

Seule wrote:

I also think that just downloading child pornography should be punished slightly less severely - it's a buyer's market, yes, but giving the same sex offender status to someone who downloads illegal pornography as someone who rapes someone...

This I have to disagree with, even if only on moral grounds. The fact is that they're getting their jollies from someone else raping or molesting a child is almost no better than them doing the deed themselves. They are pretty much willing accomplices to the crime, and by consuming the material they provide further incentive for more material to be distributed... and more children to be harmed in the process.

Also, in response to no one in particular: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Seule wrote:

This I... don't agree with. Why is it ridiculous?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Cy was referring to locking up paedophiles who have yet to molest anyone being ridiculous.

YES, THANK YOU. Why can no-one read lately?

Seule wrote:

But anyway, the whole treatment thing - I think where people are going wrong is assuming that something as inbuilt as paedophilia can be 'cured'.

Nobody said "cured".

Quote :

I guess it would be good for society in general to remember that there's actually quite a big difference between being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to prepubescent children) and actually raping a child. That's why I disagree so much with things like banning drawn child pornography - that's not hurting anybody,

Ehhhhh, I don't know. One could make the argument that allowing drawn child pornography (for instance) helps to make sex with children seem more acceptable.

Quote :

and stigmatising that as well only makes it harder for people who can't help themselves.

Please. The vast majority of people can control their sexual urges. No-one actually needs porn to get off or not rape people. We all have imaginations.

Quote :

I also think that just downloading child pornography should be punished slightly less severely - it's a buyer's market, yes, but giving the same sex offender status to someone who downloads illegal pornography as someone who rapes someone...

No, fuck that. If you enjoy watching video of a real child being brutally raped then you deserve the same sex offender status as the person doing the raping. You're just as complicit as the sick fucks who kidnapped and raped the kid and videoed it and put it online for other sick fucks to jerk off.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

and stigmatising that as well only makes it harder for people who can't help themselves.

Please. The vast majority of people can control their sexual urges. No-one actually needs porn to get off or not rape people. We all have imaginations.

Basically this. I'm sorry, but access to porn is not a right.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Seule wrote:

This I... don't agree with. Why is it ridiculous?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Cy was referring to locking up paedophiles who have yet to molest anyone being ridiculous.

YES, THANK YOU. Why can no-one read lately?

My bad, I apologised for derping

Quote :

Seule wrote:

But anyway, the whole treatment thing - I think where people are going wrong is assuming that something as inbuilt as paedophilia can be 'cured'.

Nobody said "cured".

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I wasn't addressing anyone specifically; I meant "people" as in "society in general" not as in "Cyberwulf".

Quote :

Quote :

I guess it would be good for society in general to remember that there's actually quite a big difference between being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to prepubescent children) and actually raping a child. That's why I disagree so much with things like banning drawn child pornography - that's not hurting anybody,

Ehhhhh, I don't know. One could make the argument that allowing drawn child pornography (for instance) helps to make sex with children seem more acceptable.

One could indeed make that argument, but then one could make the argument that violent comics make violence more acceptable, that guro comics make murder more acceptable... and so on.

Quote :

Quote :

and stigmatising that as well only makes it harder for people who can't help themselves.

Please. The vast majority of people can control their sexual urges. No-one actually needs porn to get off or not rape people. We all have imaginations.

For no one needing porn, it sure is popular... Come on, CAVEMEN drew porn. I think it's pretty much well-established that porn is a large part of many peoples' lives. As for 'the vast majority of people can control their sexual urges' - I specifically said that it makes it harder for people who can't help themselves. That is, the ones who can't control their urges. Whether they are in the minority or not is irrelevant.

Also remember that not all the people who read that sort of thing are paedophiles. Age-play enthusiasts, people attracted to innocence or even young people attracted to their elders... these are harmless fetishes.

Quote :

Quote :

I also think that just downloading child pornography should be punished slightly less severely - it's a buyer's market, yes, but giving the same sex offender status to someone who downloads illegal pornography as someone who rapes someone...

No, fuck that. If you enjoy watching video of a real child being brutally raped then you deserve the same sex offender status as the person doing the raping. You're just as complicit as the sick fucks who kidnapped and raped the kid and videoed it and put it online for other sick fucks to jerk off.

There is a very, very profound difference between grooming a child for months and years and watching child porn. There is a very profound difference between watching someone being raped and raping someone. A person watching child porn doesn't have to deal with the child. They don't have to take the responsibility of causing trauma, they don't have to physically hold down the child, to hear them cry, to have to see them afterwards. They aren't the ones exploiting children who should be able to trust them.

Allow me to draw a parallel between this and 'normal' porn. Who here watches porn and thinks about the performers? Who beats one off while wondering whether the lady in this movie wanted to be a doctor when she grew up, whether she was forced into the industry, whether she feels dirty and cries at night? Who watches and thinks of the people behind it as real live human beings? Porn at its essence is about voyeurism.

If you buy drugs, does that make you a dealer? If you watch sports, does that make you a sportsman? Being part of the market for a product makes you partly responsible for the product being produced, yes, but it doesn't make you as bad as the person producing it. That's almost like saying that everyone who buys a supermarket t shirt is exactly as bad as the people forcing others to work in sweatshops for no pay. They are selfishly buying a product that they know was produced in bad circumstances because they get something out of it (in this case, a cheap piece of clothing). People who watch child porn are selfishly buying a product that they know was produced in bad circumstances because they get something out of it (in this case, to whack off). Does this make them sort of a dick? Yes. Does this make them exactly as bad as the people producing it in the first place? Of course not.

I had more written but I forgot it, the computer ate my original post. Anyhoo.


ETA: You do realise that not all child porn consists of showing children who have been kidnapped being brutally and forcefully raped, right? That most of it appears to be consensual, right? Something where the implications of it are easy to forget about when you're masturbating...

Seule wrote:

ETA: You do realise that not all child porn consists of showing children who have been kidnapped being brutally and forcefully raped, right? That most of it appears to be consensual, right? Something where the implications of it are easy to forget about when you're masturbating...

You know that's irrelevant, right?

All of your comparisons, besides the rape one, are erroneous and mired in too much other shit to be able to be used to back up your claim. And the rape one I'm going to have the same stance on. Or snuff films. Or crush porn. Endorsing, paying for, and getting your kicks from someone else's misery, brutalizing, torture, or death, isn't the same, but it's barely better. It's saying "yeah, I like this. I'm going to make sure it keeps happening."

Not a single lick of fucking good comes out of child porn. And that's that. The end.

fapfapfap wrote:

Seule wrote:

ETA: You do realise that not all child porn consists of showing children who have been kidnapped being brutally and forcefully raped, right? That most of it appears to be consensual, right? Something where the implications of it are easy to forget about when you're masturbating...

You know that's irrelevant, right?

All of your comparisons, besides the rape one, are erroneous and mired in too much other shit to be able to be used to back up your claim. And the rape one I'm going to have the same stance on. Or snuff films. Or crush porn. Endorsing, paying for, and getting your kicks from someone else's misery, brutalizing, torture, or death, isn't the same, but it's barely better. It's saying "yeah, I like this. I'm going to make sure it keeps happening."

Not a single lick of fucking good comes out of child porn. And that's that. The end.

Yeah, that was just in response to Cyberwulf's thing, just something tacked on to the end.

As for no good coming from these things... imagine if all the porn you like was illegal.

Look, I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong, I'm just trying to say in an awkward and heavyhanded way that stigmatising paedophiles so much for watching paedophilic material is in some ways hypocritical and in others only aids the isolation and shame that comes with having such a taboo sexual preference.

Seule wrote:

As for no good coming from these things... imagine if all the porn you like was illegal.

What does it have to do with how a pedo feels about their consumption of illegal child rape porn? What part of it being illegal child rape porn don't you seem to understand? And pfft, I've got different porn issues. There is tons more child porn out there than there is of shit I like, so fuck off, that's an irrelevant appeal to my sense of pity. Of which I have none for those who willfully contribute to this horrendous shit.

Seule wrote:

Look, I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong, I'm just trying to say in an awkward and heavyhanded way that stigmatising paedophiles so much for watching paedophilic material is in some ways hypocritical and in others only aids the isolation and shame that comes with having such a taboo sexual preference.

Let's call a spade a spade: you're saying that it's, in some capacity, okay that people do these things. Instead of looking at them in terms of "awful", "more awful", and "kill-it-with-fire awful", which is a more appropriate scale. You're saying "well, at least they're not doing THIS...". That's wrong. That's excusing them, which is not something anyone should be doing to these people.

And how is it hypocritical? If you're still comparing it to buying stuff at Wal-mart, I can break down for you why that's not really applicable.

Seule wrote:

There is a very, very profound difference between grooming a child for months and years and watching child porn.

Allow me, as someone who suffered from actually being raped as a kid, to say, no. Fuck this. The reason that both parties should be punished equally is the simple fact that... oh, I don't know... Perhaps training a child and forcing them into a porn industry, versus willingly watching said child be raped by multiple partners on both ends of the scales, seem to be creating a cycle if you lessen the laws on Child Pornography.

Since you are trying to think of it as Wal*Mart. These sick fucks who actually kidnap and then force kids into porn are the 'sellers' and the people who are sick enough to get off to it, are the 'buyers'. See the cycle here? It's going to loop endlessly (hell it's even going on as I type this, yet I can't do shit about it) unless the rules are tightened and KEPT tight so that people who complain about this... disgusting shit, will not ever be able to abuse/watch a child be abused in a sexual way.

I for the love of me cannot figure out WHY you are arguing that it is 'wrong' that the people watching said child porn are not as bad as the people filming/making it. Because as I stated above, they're essentially encouraging AND (possibly) buying the child pornography.

/endrant

I have to agree withReidmar. I worked in a psychiatric clinic where one of the therapists treated children who'd been molested. Another was attempting to come up with a treatment for pedophiles because, even now, there IS no treatment for pedophiles that works. It's classified as a mental illness, but therapy doesn't work. Jail time doesn't work. Being tagged and not permitted within 100 yards of a school doesn't work. Most pedophiles I encountered didn't WANT to change. They believed that society was wrong and repressive, that their sexual interest in young children wasn't exploitation of someone who was too young to defend themselves, but was actual 'love' Their major defence was "They came on to me,' failing to explain how, exactly, a six-year-old can act sexually enticing to an adult.

These guys are predators, plain and simple.

More to the point, very few of them are the 'Strangers with candy' we warn our children about. Most of them are people who are KNOWN AND TRUSTED by the child's family. A grandfather, an uncle, a long-time family friend. A Priest. They tend to abuse people's trust in them to gain unlimited access to the child.

And unless the child gets help, it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Most child molsters were, themselves, molested as children. They tend to suffer from low self-esteem. Because of what was done to them, their moral values are pretty well screwed.

I had a former friend who had a daughter by a guy who was basically a on-night-stand. He disappeared as soon as he found out she was pregnant, and basically showed no interest in either her or the child he'd fathered.

Until the day the girl started middle school and he showed up at the woman's door and gave her a sob story about how he wanted to get to know his daughter better, and how sorry he was he'd ignored her all these years. And the idiot fell for it, and started letting him take the girl (who was 13 and didn't know this guy from's Adam's off ox) a couple of days a week. And didn't listen when the daughter kept trying to tell her that she didn't LIKE going to stay with him.

Two months later, he and a buddy were busted for possession and distribution of child pornography. They lived down the street from the Middle School, and it's estimated they'd managed to entice probably close to 100 or more kids in by acting friendly and having a video game system they let them play. They deliberately picked out kids who were loners, or didn't fit in, they were friendly, and groomed them, and then one day, it was time to pay the piper. According to the paper, the computer records showed they had well over a million pedophiles they were providing with video tapes, based on their sexual 'preferences.'

Both of them are in the State Pen for life, now. I never did find out whether or not the guy's daughter ended up being forced into being int he videos, though I'd be surprised if she didn't.

So my take on pedophiles is this. They deserve no mercy or pity. They know what they're doing, and no matter how many times they get caught doing it, they blame it on the kid, say they can't control themselves, spend some time in prison, and are back out on the streets to ruin someone else's life (unless someone in prison finds out why they're there, in which case they probably end up with a shank between their ribs and no one mourns them).

Chemical castration isn't an effective means of stopping them. They've still got their hands and, in a lot of cases, friends who are also into this sort of thing.

I think that, until such time as psychiatry can come up with a medication that quells the impulses and keeps them from following through, they should be locked up for life. No chance of parole, no time off for good behavior.

Sorry, but I've seen first-hand the sort of damage these fuckers can do, and I hold no sympathy for them.