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

Quote :

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.

One thing here, many paedophiles are virtually unknown unless caught (and if they are in such a position they obviously don't have any moral boundaries preventing their actions), and perhaps do not feel stigmatised at all for their behaviour. And I dislike the use of 'sexual preference' here, that term links it with other sexual preferences, such as homosexuality (which is between two consenting adults, NOT a predator and an innocent child, who will be psychologically damaged for the rest of their life, might I add), that are far less damaging and far more acceptable in the eyes of the public, and seems to (whether intentionally or not) make paedophilia appear on the same level, when it really, REALLY isn't.

Quote :

These guys are predators, plain and simple.

pearlescent wrote:

Quote :

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.

One thing here, many paedophiles are virtually unknown unless caught (and if they are in such a position they obviously don't have any moral boundaries preventing their actions), and perhaps do not feel stigmatised at all for their behaviour. And I dislike the use of 'sexual preference' here, that term links it with other sexual preferences, such as homosexuality (which is between two consenting adults, NOT a predator and an innocent child, who will be psychologically damaged for the rest of their life, might I add), that are far less damaging and far more acceptable in the eyes of the public, and seems to (whether intentionally or not) make paedophilia appear on the same level, when it really, REALLY isn't.

Quote :

These guys are predators, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, it is a sexual preference. A sexual preference for children. Which is why, if you read any medical literature on the subject, you'll find that most of them have a very hard time forming intimate relationships with other adults, if they feel the pressure or need to do so at all. What would you rather call it? "Kidwant"? Let's just call it kidwant and make everyone happy by screwing up all the terminology (which is useful to know if you're trying to find a scientific solution to these people) because we're trying to be PC.

Guys. Guys.I am NOT saying that PAEDOPHILIA ISN'T BAD. I have no idea why you guys seem to think that's my point, because it's not. I am not saying that CHILD PORN ISN'T BAD and that it doesn't exploit children blah blah blah. That is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that I can understand why someone would watch it, despite it being awful, and that honestly don't see how watching something happen makes you exactly as bad as the person who is doing that thing. Yes it makes you bad. It is all bad. But there has to be a difference between the person that rapes a child and the person that gives in to their instincts, their sexuality, and watches a child porn video.

All I mean is that I can understand why someone would watch child porn, whereas I can't understand why someone would rape a child.


Let me try to respond to each of you individually...

fapfapfap wrote:

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.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here fap (sorry, it probably is me, I just woke up ). Your argument seems to be that everything I said is irrelevant... because it's chld porn? I don't get it... Also that you disagree with me, that's fine.

Quote :

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.

Quote :

Let's call a spade a spade: you're saying that it's, in some capacity, okay

NO. I said specifically that, and I quote, "I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong". Don't quote me and then say that I wrote the opposite. As I said many times, it's all bad. And yes, I am excusing them. You act as if it's a choice, "these people"... Yes, because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy? And it's hypocritical because it's expecting more out of one set of people - that is, putting real thought into their porn beyond "hurr durr sex" - than most of us would do... and then saying that they're evil for not doing that.

Reidmar wrote:

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 did not say that there wasn't a cycle. I did not say that watching child porn wasn't bad. What I take umbrage at is this:

Quote :

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.

Quote :

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... they're not. Because they're not raping a child. They're both bad. But raping a child is a worse crime than watching a child being raped. Producing the material is a worse crime than buying it. Yes, you are right about the buyers and the sellers. Yes, you're right that it's a loop that won't be brokken without disruption on both ends. What I am saying is that, morally, of course watching a child being raped isn't as bad as doing the raping. The people may be as bad as each other. The act is not as bad.


@Rabid Badger: Sorry Badgy, you know I love you, but most of what you said didn't have any bearing on what I was saying. Raping a child is very, very bad. Of course. What I'm trying to say is that just being a paedophile doesn't make you a bad person... I'll explain further in a sec.

pearlescent wrote:

Quote :

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.

One thing here, many paedophiles are virtually unknown unless caught (and if they are in such a position they obviously don't have any moral boundaries preventing their actions), and perhaps do not feel stigmatised at all for their behaviour. And I dislike the use of 'sexual preference' here, that term links it with other sexual preferences, such as homosexuality (which is between two consenting adults, NOT a predator and an innocent child, who will be psychologically damaged for the rest of their life, might I add), that are far less damaging and far more acceptable in the eyes of the public, and seems to (whether intentionally or not) make paedophilia appear on the same level, when it really, REALLY isn't.

Quote :

These guys are predators, plain and simple.

So a sexual preference can only be between two consenting adults? If it's not, what is it called?







I'm just trying to make a few points here guys, you don't have to agree with me. The questions I want to ask, to break them down very simply, are:

o If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, does that make it a sexual preference?
o If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, how can it be a crime? (NB: I am talking about the state of being a paedophile, NOT raping children. Raping children is a crime, obviously. I am talking about the state of being aroused by children, not actually committing the act.)
o If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, should watching child porn be treated as a crime of the same severity as actually raping a child?
o If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, what is the best course of action to take with paedophiles? Should we attempt to 'cure' them? IS there a way to 'cure' them (I hope you don't need me to tell you that Cyb's study example was meaningless, but I'd love to see the results of any more in-depth studies)? Is drawn and written child porn an acceptable outlet for them or does it make them more likely to attack a child? Are other fetishes such as age-play an outlet for people with paedophilic tendencies?
o Does the stigmatism attached to the state of "being a paedophile" (that is, someone who is attracted to children) contribute, in whatever way, to the actual abuse of children (by creating mental isolation and shame for the paedophile - that is, if they were happy with themselves, are they less likely to abuse others)?


These are all questions that I genuinely don't know the answer to (obviously I have some opinions, on the first three in general). I just think that paedophilia in general should be thought about in a little bit more depth than "these people are evil".


And now for my anecdote.


I know a paedophile. I hope to god he isn't reading this (if he is, sorry bro), but let's call him P. P has never touched a child. He has never watched child porn (he reads shifty manga and sex stories). Being a paedophile is tearing him up inside. It's not something he chose - he was always attracted to young children, since he was a young child himself, but the worst thing he can think of is to hurt a child.

One day, he rang me up in tears (this is a 6"3 rugby player, btw, he never cries) because he'd had a wet dream about his neighbour. She's 5. I have never in my life heard someone so in pieces as he was, saying he was going to move, he would never be able to talk to her mother again, and so on.

This is one of the sweetest guys I know, who would never hurt a fly, but who feels totally isolated by this thing that he never had a decision over. And what is he supposed to do, go to a therapist? Go up and say "I want an appointment for my paedophilia"? And if he ever slips up, even for a second, and watches some child porn (and I know he'd hate himself afterwards), would I think he was as bad as a child rapist?

Seule wrote:

What I am saying is that I can understand why someone would watch it, despite it being awful, and that honestly don't see how watching something happen makes you exactly as bad as the person who is doing that thing. Yes it makes you bad. It is all bad. But there has to be a difference between the person that rapes a child and the person that gives in to their instincts, their sexuality, and watches a child porn video.

There's not. You're looking at this from a market perspective, so let's do that.

People don't make things that don't sell. When there are no consumers for a product, the product doesn't move, and eventually the market for it disappears entirely. This is why Betamax never caught on. There wasn't a market for it, so it died out. Consumers create the demand for which the supply exists. In fact, consumers are the whole point of selling something in the first place.

Unfortunately, eliminating the demand wouldn't completely, totally, entirely eliminate child sexual abuse. But if people were not buying it enabling others to make money by abusing children, it is only logical to suppose that the incidence of child abuse would plummet compared to what it is at present. Any time you buy anything, you participate in a system that is ultimately geared to serve the consumer. Anytime anyone buys child porn, they are participating in a system of abuse that is ultimately geared to serve them, the consumer. Of course they are equally guilty! They are the reason a major portion of child pornography exists in the first place! Because they--the viewers--pay for it!

There is literally no getting around this. When you put money in to support something, you become complicit in the whole deal. That's why it's important to make sure you can live with the decisions made by companies from which you buy legitimate products and that's why consumers of child porn are just as bad as everyone else involved. Even if we look at them as people not directly involved, they still care more about getting their rocks off than the fact that they paid money to watch an actual human child being raped. There is no excuse for that whatsoever. Not preference, not "they can't help how they feel," not being born with it, not anything. None. And yes, they're involved and just as badly.

Seule wrote:

NO. I said specifically that, and I quote, "I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong". Don't quote me and then say that I wrote the opposite. As I said many times, it's all bad. And yes, I am excusing them. You act as if it's a choice, "these people"... Yes, because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy?

Did you not read my anecdote? Where I go on about the ethics of the non-criminal (or I guess, Schrodinger's) pedo? Apparently you didn't. Please go and read that before making any more assumptions about what I think. Now for your logic fail:

Quote :

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong.

Quote :

And yes, I am excusing them.

How in the name of fucking god do you reconcile those two? What are you, a Nazi apologist too? Do you sympathize with men who beat their wives because they deserved it?

The definition of "excuse", as per Thesaurus.com: 1. reason, explanation 2. to free from responsibility

Is that what you're really trying to do? Free the sick fucks who do nothing but perpetuate this circle of violence and humiliation of children of their responsibility to be decent human beings? Why do they get special status? Is anyone going to believe me if I walked down the street and randomly stabbed someone, and gave the excuse of "Oh, sorry. I couldn't help myself. At least I didn't kill them?"

Seule wrote:

And it's hypocritical because it's expecting more out of one set of people - that is, putting real thought into their porn beyond "hurr durr sex" - than most of us would do... and then saying that they're evil for not doing that.

I cannot believe you just said this. This is so asinine and ridiculous that I'm not even going to bother.

Seule wrote:

I'm just trying to make a few points here guys, you don't have to agree with me. The questions I want to ask, to break them down very simply, are:

1. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, does that make it a sexual preference?
2. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, how can it be a crime? (NB: I am talking about the state of being a paedophile, NOT raping children. Raping children is a crime, obviously. I am talking about the state of being aroused by children, not actually committing the act.)
3. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, should watching child porn be treated as a crime of the same severity as actually raping a child?
4. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, what is the best course of action to take with paedophiles? Should we attempt to 'cure' them? IS there a way to 'cure' them (I hope you don't need me to tell you that Cyb's study example was meaningless, but I'd love to see the results of any more in-depth studies)? Is drawn and written child porn an acceptable outlet for them or does it make them more likely to attack a child? Are other fetishes such as age-play an outlet for people with paedophilic tendencies?
5. Does the stigmatism attached to the state of "being a paedophile" (that is, someone who is attracted to children) contribute, in whatever way, to the actual abuse of children (by creating mental isolation and shame for the paedophile - that is, if they were happy with themselves, are they less likely to abuse others)?

1. Yes.
2. Point to where anyone actually conflated a law-abiding pedo with a sick fuck pedo. Nobody did and I have no idea why you're convinced otherwise.
3. Yes. Not going to explain, because I already did and you've got your blinders on so there's no point.
4. Read the posts from before you jumped in here.
5. No. If they're fucked enough to have it in them to do something, all the porn in the world isn't going to "prevent" them from doing it. Likewise, the lack of porn isn't going to "make" them do anything. Because when it comes right down to it, if you want the real thing bad enough, you're going to find a way to get it. This is like... psychology 101 shit.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Seule wrote:

What I am saying is that I can understand why someone would watch it, despite it being awful, and that honestly don't see how watching something happen makes you exactly as bad as the person who is doing that thing. Yes it makes you bad. It is all bad. But there has to be a difference between the person that rapes a child and the person that gives in to their instincts, their sexuality, and watches a child porn video.

There's not. You're looking at this from a market perspective, so let's do that.

People don't make things that don't sell. When there are no consumers for a product, the product doesn't move, and eventually the market for it disappears entirely. This is why Betamax never caught on. There wasn't a market for it, so it died out. Consumers create the demand for which the supply exists. In fact, consumers are the whole point of selling something in the first place.

Yes, and I admitted that. But does being part of the demand for something make you as bad as the people who make it? This is where the t-shirt analogy fits in.

Quote :

Unfortunately, eliminating the demand wouldn't completely, totally, entirely eliminate child sexual abuse. But if people were not buying it enabling others to make money by abusing children, it is only logical to suppose that the incidence of child abuse would plummet compared to what it is at present. Any time you buy anything, you participate in a system that is ultimately geared to serve the consumer. Anytime anyone buys child porn, they are participating in a system of abuse that is ultimately geared to serve them, the consumer. Of course they are equally guilty! They are the reason a major portion of child pornography exists in the first place! Because they--the viewers--pay for it!

Yes. I said that. It's a cycle. The product exists because there is demand. I admitted that, repeatedly. So yes, so far I agree with you totally.

Quote :

There is literally no getting around this. When you put money in to support something, you become complicit in the whole deal.

Yep, still with you.

Quote :

That's why it's important to make sure you can live with the decisions made by companies from which you buy legitimate products and that's why consumers of child porn are just as bad as everyone else involved. Even if we look at them as people not directly involved, they still care more about getting their rocks off than the fact that they paid money to watch an actual human child being raped. There is no excuse for that whatsoever. Not preference, not "they can't help how they feel," not being born with it, not anything. None. And yes, they're involved and just as badly.

This is the bit that I don't agree with. Does buying stolen goods make you a thief etc etc. I mean, I suppose it's a matter of opinion, although as you get punished a lot more severely for rape of a child than for possession of child porn, I guess the law agrees with me. But yeah. Just making it clear exactly what bit I don't agree with, because I think people are getting confused a bit.

Fapfapfap, I'm going to doublepost my response to you, because it'll take a while. Hang on.

Actually wait, no, sorry.

fapfapfap wrote:

What are you, a Nazi apologist too?

Thread's over people. Everyone, go home.

Seule wrote:

Actually wait, no, sorry.

fapfapfap wrote:

What are you, a Nazi apologist too?

Thread's over people. Everyone, go home.

No, it was a legitimate question. You claim that we can sympathize with and absolve people who commit atrocious acts of their responsibility and that we don't have to hold them to quite the same standard of basic human decency as we do "other people". Where do you draw the line exactly? Because I don't buy your opinion that pedophiles should be granted some kind of special moral status that exempts them from being punished and ostracized when they commit a crime. What puts the endemic rape, torture, and molestation of children, and the willful, criminal, endorsement of it, in a different category than any other heinous crime?

Show your work and stop dodging when you get backed into a corner.

Seule wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

That's why it's important to make sure you can live with the decisions made by companies from which you buy legitimate products and that's why consumers of child porn are just as bad as everyone else involved. Even if we look at them as people not directly involved, they still care more about getting their rocks off than the fact that they paid money to watch an actual human child being raped. There is no excuse for that whatsoever. Not preference, not "they can't help how they feel," not being born with it, not anything. None. And yes, they're involved and just as badly.

This is the bit that I don't agree with. Does buying stolen goods make you a thief etc etc.

Yes, actually it does, which is why knowingly purchasing stolen goods is a crime. And why people who commission a crime, such as a murder-for-hire, are just as culpable under the law as the person who actually does the murdering.

Seule wrote:

I mean, I suppose it's a matter of opinion, although as you get punished a lot more severely for rape of a child than for possession of child porn, I guess the law agrees with me.

The reason the law works that way is because of legal practicalities, not because of moral culpability. The fact that the justice system doesn't have the capacity to swat people who buy child porn with as big a stick as it does those who make it doesn't change anything else that I've said.

Nor, for the record (she said with some degree of asperity), does your categorization of my fact-claims as "opinion" make them any less claims of fact (or yours, for that matter, since your claim is factual, as well). I didn't say "I feel like people who buy child porn are just as bad as those who make it." I said "People who buy child porn are, in fact, as bad as those who make it and here is the reason why." Claiming that's opinion is not a response, it's a dodge. You have not responded to the argument until you present valid reasons why what I said is wrong.

I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. And you are wrong about it.

No, Seule, I don’t think I will go home just yet.

Seule wrote:

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?

People SHOULD fucking think about the performers. Maye then they'd realise how goddamn skeevy the whole thing is.

Seule wrote:

Who watches and thinks of the people behind it as real live human beings?

So filmed porn is dehumanising. I hope you realise that runs counter to your earlier point of it being a harmless outlet for paedophiles.

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...

So it furthers the myth of the “seductive child”, which in turn helps paedophiles who do molest children justify what they’re doing. And it furthers it by linking it with orgasm.

Do you realise what you’re saying yet?

And by the way, how the fuck do you know what child porn is like?

Quote :

because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy?

If you’re prepared to watch a real, human child being raped, because that’s what it is no matter how it “looks”, for your own sexual gratification, you don’t deserve sympathy.

Seule wrote:

But raping a child is a worse crime than watching a child being raped.

Who. Gives. A fuck. About a tiny degree of “less badness”? If this was an adult watching a real adult being raped I’d say the same thing.

Seule wrote:

So a sexual preference can only be between two consenting adults?

ACTING on a sexual preference can only be between two consenting adults, you dope. OTHERWISE IT’S RAPE.

Quote :

I hope you don't need me to tell you that Cyb's study example was meaningless

I didn’t say there was a cure, you fucking dumbass. I said that the study showed a forty per cent success rate in the short term, for child molesters (which may be paedophiles, sadists or psychopaths). Learn to read. There’s no CURE. However, in a situation where child molesters cannot be locked up indefinitely and will inevitably be released, therapy should at least be attempted. Forty per cent translates into hundreds of children who will not be victimised.

Badger – re child molesters having been molested themselves, even assuming that all the child molesters who report that they were molested as children are telling the truth, correlation doesn’t mean causation.

Cyberwulf wrote:

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.

...and suddenly all those WGW users declaring they're "asexual" before talking about whichever kid-aimed fandom of the week they enjoy makes a lot more sense.

Okay guys... since you asked, let me respond to you. First, let me just remind you that I don't believe that there is a right and wrong answer to any of this; I just think that it's something that should be considered and talked about more. When I disagree with you it might be a factual/logical innacuracy but it's more likely to just be something that I don't agree with. That doesn't mean you're wrong or that I'm attacking you, I'm just trying to discuss something that I find very interesting and that I think is a great topic for discussion. It's exactly the kneejerk reaction of "but paedophiles are evil!" that I think is a symptom of society in general. It does get a bit boring after a while when I can't disgree with someone without being called a Nazi, though. Anyway, let me just clear some more stuff up, or try to.

Again, I am only saying something is wrong when it is innacurate. Just because I disagree with you does not mean we are mortal enemies. It does not mean that you are wrong. It also doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Fapfapfap, you seem to be mostly concerned with times when you think I've contradicted myself. I'm sorry about that if I have, but I'll try to answer you now. I already outlined exactly what I'm trying to say, I probably got confused somewhere along the way but I'll see if I can't clear some of this up.

fapfapfap wrote:

Seule wrote:

NO. I said specifically that, and I quote, "I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong". Don't quote me and then say that I wrote the opposite. As I said many times, it's all bad. And yes, I am excusing them. You act as if it's a choice, "these people"... Yes, because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy?

Did you not read my anecdote? Where I go on about the ethics of the non-criminal (or I guess, Schrodinger's) pedo? Apparently you didn't. Please go and read that before making any more assumptions about what I think.

Yes, I did, actually. I didn't say anything about what you thought. I said "you act as if..." meaning "although this may not be what you believe, your behaviour makes it seem like you are saying that..."

Quote :

Now for your logic fail:

Quote :

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong.

Quote :

And yes, I am excusing them.

How in the name of fucking god do you reconcile those two? What are you, a Nazi apologist too? Do you sympathize with men who beat their wives because they deserved it?

The definition of "excuse", as per Thesaurus.com: 1. reason, explanation 2. to free from responsibility

Is that what you're really trying to do? Free the sick fucks who do nothing but perpetuate this circle of violence and humiliation of children of their responsibility to be decent human beings? Why do they get special status? Is anyone going to believe me if I walked down the street and randomly stabbed someone, and gave the excuse of "Oh, sorry. I couldn't help myself. At least I didn't kill them?"

Let's take this bit by bit.

Quote :

Quote :

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong.

Quote :

And yes, I am excusing them.

How in the name of fucking god do you reconcile those two?
...
The definition of "excuse", as per Thesaurus.com: 1. reason, explanation 2. to free from responsibility

Is that what you're really trying to do?

I was responding to the context in which you used the word "excusing". I said that the stigmatisation of paedophiles (those who have not raped a child but who may have watched paedophilic material) for something that could be hard even for some normal people (that is, not watching porn) might add to their feelings of isolation, with the intended implication that this might also prevent them from getting help etc. You said, in response to that, and I quote, "That's excusing them." My response intended to convey that if that was what you meant by "excusing", then yes I was "excusing" them. You yourself did not use the dictionary definition of "excusing", and I was responding to you. Obviously I did not mean that I was excusing them in the definition of "to free from responsibility", as I have said repeatedly.

Quote :

What are you, a Nazi apologist too? Do you sympathize with men who beat their wives because they deserved it?

I am trying very hard to be reasonable here, but it's difficult when you make such hysterical comparisons. Nevertheless, here goes.
No, I'm not a Nazi apologist. People are not born Nazis. Although I would sympathise with the people of Germany during the second world war, cultural pressure and all that, but that's an entirely different conversation that I really do not want to get into.
No, I do not sympathise with men who beat their wives. How this is a parallel with people being sexually attracted to children despite not raping them I have no idea. Feel free to explain.

Quote :

Seule wrote:

And it's hypocritical because it's expecting more out of one set of people - that is, putting real thought into their porn beyond "hurr durr sex" - than most of us would do... and then saying that they're evil for not doing that.

I cannot believe you just said this. This is so asinine and ridiculous that I'm not even going to bother.

Well if you're going to draw attention to it, please do. As it is though, there is nothing for me to respond to here.

Quote :

Seule wrote:

I'm just trying to make a few points here guys, you don't have to agree with me. The questions I want to ask, to break them down very simply, are:

1. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, does that make it a sexual preference?

1. Yes.

Okay, we agree on that.

Quote :

Quote :

2. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, how can it be a crime? (NB: I am talking about the state of being a paedophile, NOT raping children. Raping children is a crime, obviously. I am talking about the state of being aroused by children, not actually committing the act.)

2. Point to where anyone actually conflated a law-abiding pedo with a sick fuck pedo. Nobody did and I have no idea why you're convinced otherwise.

The main mistake you are making here is acting as if I answered my own question. I didn't. I think that we disagree a lot less than you think we do.

Quote :

Quote :

3. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, should watching child porn be treated as a crime of the same severity as actually raping a child?

3. Yes. Not going to explain, because I already did and you've got your blinders on so there's no point.

Now then, what's the point in getting all up in arms at my failure to explain every single little thing if you won't do the same? That's hardly fair. You already explained, and I disagreed. It happens.

Quote :

Quote :

4. If being a paedophile (that is, someone who is attracted to children, NOT a child rapist) is non-voluntary, what is the best course of action to take with paedophiles? Should we attempt to 'cure' them? IS there a way to 'cure' them (I hope you don't need me to tell you that Cyb's study example was meaningless, but I'd love to see the results of any more in-depth studies)? Is drawn and written child porn an acceptable outlet for them or does it make them more likely to attack a child? Are other fetishes such as age-play an outlet for people with paedophilic tendencies?

4. Read the posts from before you jumped in here.

I did. Again, it is a set of questions, not a statement. These questions are ones that I think society in general should ask, not ones that I want answers to in this thread.
[quote]

Quote :

5. Does the stigmatism attached to the state of "being a paedophile" (that is, someone who is attracted to children) contribute, in whatever way, to the actual abuse of children (by creating mental isolation and shame for the paedophile - that is, if they were happy with themselves, are they less likely to abuse others)?

Quote :

5. No. If they're fucked enough to have it in them to do something, all the porn in the world isn't going to "prevent" them from doing it. Likewise, the lack of porn isn't going to "make" them do anything. Because when it comes right down to it, if you want the real thing bad enough, you're going to find a way to get it. This is like... psychology 101 shit.

When did I say that porn would prevent them from raping children? When did I even mention porn in this question?

Quote :

No, it was a legitimate question. You claim that we can sympathize with and absolve people who commit atrocious acts of their responsibility and that we don't have to hold them to quite the same standard of basic human decency as we do "other people". Where do you draw the line exactly? Because I don't buy your opinion that pedophiles should be granted some kind of special moral status that exempts them from being punished and ostracized when they commit a crime. What puts the endemic rape, torture, and molestation of children, and the willful, criminal, endorsement of it, in a different category than any other heinous crime?

Show your work and stop dodging when you get backed into a corner.

Again, let's take this bit by bit.

Quote :

No, it was a legitimate question. You claim that we can sympathize with and absolve people who commit atrocious acts of their responsibility and that we don't have to hold them to quite the same standard of basic human decency as we do "other people".

Quote :

You claim that we can sympathize with and absolve people who commit atrocious acts of their responsibility

Where? I said we can sympathise with people who are attracted to children, yes, because it isn't their choice. I said that watching child porn is terrible but I could somewhat understand it and that I don't think those people should be treated as if they raped a child themselves. I never said that they shouldn't be punished, I said that they shouldn't be punished as severely.

Quote :

and that we don't have to hold them to quite the same standard of basic human decency as we do "other people".

No, actually I said the opposite. I said that we shouldn't expect people to have a higher measure of self-control and introspection just because they're paedophiles. I said that we should hold them to exactly the same standard, instead of a higher one.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Seule wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

That's why it's important to make sure you can live with the decisions made by companies from which you buy legitimate products and that's why consumers of child porn are just as bad as everyone else involved. Even if we look at them as people not directly involved, they still care more about getting their rocks off than the fact that they paid money to watch an actual human child being raped. There is no excuse for that whatsoever. Not preference, not "they can't help how they feel," not being born with it, not anything. None. And yes, they're involved and just as badly.

This is the bit that I don't agree with. Does buying stolen goods make you a thief etc etc.

Yes, actually it does, which is why knowingly purchasing stolen goods is a crime.

Yes and you get punished to exactly the same extent as- oh wait, no you don't. Again, it's degrees of badness. It's not either bad or good, it's all bad, it's about what's worse.

Quote :

And why people who commission a crime, such as a murder-for-hire, are just as culpable under the law as the person who actually does the murdering.

That's different though. When you commission a murder, no one was going to get murdered until you paid for it. When you buy stolen goods or watch child porn, the crime's already happened. You did not directly cause the crime, and you are not directly causing another. You are, however, making up part of the market, collectively ensuring that the crime will happen again.

Quote :

Seule wrote:

I mean, I suppose it's a matter of opinion, although as you get punished a lot more severely for rape of a child than for possession of child porn, I guess the law agrees with me.

The reason the law works that way is because of legal practicalities, not because of moral culpability. The fact that the justice system doesn't have the capacity to swat people who buy child porn with as big a stick as it does those who make it doesn't change anything else that I've said.

When you start saying that, you could say that about anything. A less harsh sentence for burglary than for murder? A legal practicality! I think I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're right - if these two crimes were one and the same, they'd have the same punishment. You not agreeing with the law is something entirely different. All I said is "this is my opinion, and one that is apparently backed up by the law in pretty much every country".

Quote :

Nor, for the record (she said with some degree of asperity), does your categorization of my fact-claims as "opinion" make them any less claims of fact (or yours, for that matter, since your claim is factual, as well). I didn't say "I feel like people who buy child porn are just as bad as those who make it." I said "People who buy child porn are, in fact, as bad as those who make it and here is the reason why."

Okay, I sort of see what you're trying to say here... my response would be that I presented my opinions as fact because they are what I believe, in the same way that a Christian may say "God is good" or something. Beliefs can be changed. I assumed that you were doing the same thing, not claiming that what you believe is fact. Also... I can't find where you said those exact words, so I'm going to assume that was paraphrasing (just saying that in case you get mad at me not addressing that bit directly, if I missed it please do point it out).

Quote :

Claiming that's opinion is not a response, it's a dodge. You have not responded to the argument until you present valid reasons why what I said is wrong.

Okay, well I already said a whole bunch of things. I'll condense this down as best I can.

"People who buy child porn are, in fact, as bad as those who make it."

My response as to why I think this is innacurate:

o Being one part of the demand for something does not make you as bad as the people who make it. In the same way that drug addicts are not as bad as drug dealers, as people who buy something cheap without asking where it came from are not as bad as burglars, and yes this is where the t-shirt thing comes in. This is an opinion. However, it is one that is backed up by both society and the legal system.

o Human nature can explain watching child porn. It can not explain raping a child. Humans are fallible, especially when it comes to sex. But there is still a huge difference between slipping up and watching something you shouldn't and committing the act yourself. Paedophiles are human. Being horny and managing to fool yourself for 10 minutes that some kid in some video wants what's happening to them is completely different to systematically grooming and raping a child over a long period of time.

Quote :

I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. And you are wrong about it.

What do you think the point I'm trying to make is? And why am I wrong? Erg, sorry, I know you've probably already said the answer to both of those but I'm getting a bit muddled, hang on.

Seule wrote:

NO. I said specifically that, and I quote, "I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong". Don't quote me and then say that I wrote the opposite. As I said many times, it's all bad. And yes, I am excusing them. You act as if it's a choice, "these people"... Yes, because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy? And it's hypocritical because it's expecting more out of one set of people - that is, putting real thought into their porn beyond "hurr durr sex" - than most of us would do... and then saying that they're evil for not doing that.

This may just be how I'm reading your posts, but it sounds to me an awful lot like you're saying that paedophiles are being persecuted because we punish them for the aiding and abetting of raping children. That is an incredibly dangerous line of reasoning. I have great sympathy with paedophiles who avoid hurting others and material produced as a result of it, but I have none whatsoever with those who don't.

You're also wrong about hypocrisy. In order to compare like with like, you would have to look at markets for material of adults being raped and sexually abused. It just so happens that in the case of paedophiles, most of their porn is produced via the rape and abuse of others. The fact that this is unavoidable is unfortunate, but to suggest that this means that we should go easy on them for buying it is wrong.

People have a duty to avoid acting in a manner that is harmful to others. The more inclined you are to harm someone, the greater the obligation on you to keep yourself in check. This isn't just paedophiles. This is everyone. This does, inevitably, land some people in an unfortunate position, but that's life.

Cyberwulf wrote:

No, Seule, I don’t think I will go home just yet.

Seule wrote:

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?

People SHOULD fucking think about the performers. Maye then they'd realise how goddamn skeevy the whole thing is.

Seule wrote:

Who watches and thinks of the people behind it as real live human beings?

So filmed porn is dehumanising. I hope you realise that runs counter to your earlier point of it being a harmless outlet for paedophiles.

Cyb. This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You are not representative, and you know that. Regardless of your opinion, most people don't think that porn is dehumanising, and most people do not think about the actors while they are watching it. Just because you personally think differently does not change the opinions of 99% of the population. If all porn is evil and brutal then fine, that's a completely different topic and a completely different conversation. Also I didn't say that child porn was a "harmless outlet for paedophiles". Please point me to anywhere where I said anything even approaching that. I said that drawn porn was harmless. Because it is. There are no people involved.

Quote :

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...

So it furthers the myth of the “seductive child”, which in turn helps paedophiles who do molest children justify what they’re doing. And it furthers it by linking it with orgasm.

Um. What? Yes? I don't know? What are you on about? Yes, child porn is bad. We know this, I said this.

Quote :

Do you realise what you’re saying yet?

...no?

Quote :

Quote :

because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy?

If you’re prepared to watch a real, human child being raped, because that’s what it is no matter how it “looks”, for your own sexual gratification, you don’t deserve sympathy.

And that's your opinion.

Quote :

Seule wrote:

But raping a child is a worse crime than watching a child being raped.

Who. Gives. A fuck. About a tiny degree of “less badness”? If this was an adult watching a real adult being raped I’d say the same thing.

I give a fuck. Um, the law gives a fuck. If you don't care about that part of the conversation then don't comment on it.

Quote :

Seule wrote:

So a sexual preference can only be between two consenting adults?

ACTING on a sexual preference can only be between two consenting adults, you dope. OTHERWISE IT’S RAPE.

Well, no, rape can be a sexual preference. These two terms are not exclusive.

Quote :

Quote :

I hope you don't need me to tell you that Cyb's study example was meaningless

I didn’t say there was a cure, you fucking dumbass. I said that the study showed a forty per cent success rate in the short term, for child molesters (which may be paedophiles, sadists or psychopaths). Learn to read. There’s no CURE. However, in a situation where child molesters cannot be locked up indefinitely and will inevitably be released, therapy should at least be attempted. Forty per cent translates into hundreds of children who will not be victimised.

Your study showed a "success rate", "in the short term" of 40% of 43 people. The study is extremely vague and very small - it's the sort of study you get in shampoo adverts and things, something that looks convincing but is utterly meaningless. All that your study showed was that out of 43 people, like 17 of them experienced 'success' (which means... what? They didn't feel like paedos? Or they just didn't rape anybody, woo hoo?) in the 'short term' (days? Weeks? Hours?) Even people that agree with you in general have already pointed out why this "study" isn't exactly the most persuasive. I totally agree with you that child molesters should undergo therapy, I never said otherwise. All I said was that the study you quoted was unreliable, which is a fact. If you have a more extensive and detailed study, I'd love to hear it.

Anon wrote:

Seule wrote:

NO. I said specifically that, and I quote, "I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that raping children is not incredibly wrong". Don't quote me and then say that I wrote the opposite. As I said many times, it's all bad. And yes, I am excusing them. You act as if it's a choice, "these people"... Yes, because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy? And it's hypocritical because it's expecting more out of one set of people - that is, putting real thought into their porn beyond "hurr durr sex" - than most of us would do... and then saying that they're evil for not doing that.

This may just be how I'm reading your posts, but it sounds to me an awful lot like you're saying that paedophiles are being persecuted because we punish them for the aiding and abetting of raping children. That is an incredibly dangerous line of reasoning. I have great sympathy with paedophiles who avoid hurting others and material produced as a result of it, but I have none whatsoever with those who don't.

You're also wrong about hypocrisy. In order to compare like with like, you would have to look at markets for material of adults being raped and sexually abused. It just so happens that in the case of paedophiles, most of their porn is produced via the rape and abuse of others. The fact that this is unavoidable is unfortunate, but to suggest that this means that we should go easy on them for buying it is wrong.

People have a duty to avoid acting in a manner that is harmful to others. The more inclined you are to harm someone, the greater the obligation on you to keep yourself in check. This isn't just paedophiles. This is everyone. This does, inevitably, land some people in an unfortunate position, but that's life.

Ahh, sorry, maybe I am sounding a little more aggressive than I mean. What I'm trying to say is that paedophiles are being persecuted for being attracted to children, all actually rape or abetting of rape aside. As a society, the notion of being a paedophile is almost as taboo as watching child porn or raping a child yourself, and I think this is unfair to people who cannot change themselves or what they are attracted to and feel unable to get help or therapy.

As for hypocrisy, it was more of a "people do stupid things when they're horny" thing I was trying to express. What I was trying to say was that what is unique about child porn is although it is all rape, a lot it is not presented as rape. There isn't really anything we can compare it to, but yeah. As for your last line, I totally agree. The only thing is that due to the stigmatisation associated with being attracted to children, it's less likely that paedophiles can get some help to keep themselves in check - something not experienced by others in similar, possibly harmful positions (anger issues etc).


Oh, also I forgot

Cyberwulf wrote:

And by the way, how the fuck do you know what child porn is like?

I'm a paedophile, obviously. Now you have to excuse me, the basement is screaming again. I think they want feeding.

I can say you're wrong, about something very important even, and not hate you for it. But this is a seriously wrong claim you are making.

Seule wrote:

Me wrote:

Nor, for the record (she said with some degree of asperity), does your categorization of my fact-claims as "opinion" make them any less claims of fact (or yours, for that matter, since your claim is factual, as well). I didn't say "I feel like people who buy child porn are just as bad as those who make it." I said "People who buy child porn are, in fact, as bad as those who make it and here is the reason why."

Okay, I sort of see what you're trying to say here... my response would be that I presented my opinions as fact because they are what I believe, in the same way that a Christian may say "God is good" or something. Beliefs can be changed. I assumed that you were doing the same thing, not claiming that what you believe is fact. Also... I can't find where you said those exact words, so I'm going to assume that was paraphrasing (just saying that in case you get mad at me not addressing that bit directly, if I missed it please do point it out).

Yes, I was paraphrasing, and no, I'm not mad at you. However, the claim "God is good" is also a factual claim. Everyone who is an atheist would disagree with it, factually, on a number of levels. In fact, I believe a number of atheists on this board have disagreed with precisely this claim on factual grounds multiple times in the past, as they no doubt will continue to do so in the future. The status of something as a sincerely held belief does not shield it from being right or wrong.

Seule wrote:

What do you think the point I'm trying to make is? And why am I wrong? Erg, sorry, I know you've probably already said the answer to both of those but I'm getting a bit muddled, hang on.

You are trying to suggest that those who watch child pornography, even if it involves actual children rather than cartoon ones, are not as responsible for the abuse of children as those who physically performed the rape. You have supported this claim with the following premises. 1. "Being one part of the demand for something does not make you as bad as the people who make it." 2. "Human nature can explain watching child porn. It can not explain raping a child."

You are wrong because your premises are inadequate to support your conclusion. 1. The demand for something is the cause of the existence of the supply in the first place. Not physically participating in the act of rape does not absolve one iota of responsibility for it when such a market would not exist if there weren't people to buy into it. 2. Human nature also explains murder, bigotry, greed, rape of adults, slavery, and bullying. The fact that an action is an outlet for the natural human condition does not morally justify it in the slightest.

KelinciHutan wrote:

I can say you're wrong, about something very important even, and not hate you for it. But this is a seriously wrong claim you are making.

Seule wrote:

Me wrote:

Nor, for the record (she said with some degree of asperity), does your categorization of my fact-claims as "opinion" make them any less claims of fact (or yours, for that matter, since your claim is factual, as well). I didn't say "I feel like people who buy child porn are just as bad as those who make it." I said "People who buy child porn are, in fact, as bad as those who make it and here is the reason why."

Okay, I sort of see what you're trying to say here... my response would be that I presented my opinions as fact because they are what I believe, in the same way that a Christian may say "God is good" or something. Beliefs can be changed. I assumed that you were doing the same thing, not claiming that what you believe is fact. Also... I can't find where you said those exact words, so I'm going to assume that was paraphrasing (just saying that in case you get mad at me not addressing that bit directly, if I missed it please do point it out).

Yes, I was paraphrasing, and no, I'm not mad at you. However, the claim "God is good" is also a factual claim. Everyone who is an atheist would disagree with it, factually, on a number of levels. In fact, I believe a number of atheists on this board have disagreed with precisely this claim on factual grounds multiple times in the past, as they no doubt will continue to do so in the future. The status of something as a sincerely held belief does not shield it from being right or wrong.

Seule wrote:

What do you think the point I'm trying to make is? And why am I wrong? Erg, sorry, I know you've probably already said the answer to both of those but I'm getting a bit muddled, hang on.

You are trying to suggest that those who watch child pornography, even if it involves actual children rather than cartoon ones, are not as responsible for the abuse of children as those who physically performed the rape. You have supported this claim with the following premises. 1. "Being one part of the demand for something does not make you as bad as the people who make it." 2. "Human nature can explain watching child porn. It can not explain raping a child."

You are wrong because your premises are inadequate to support your conclusion. 1. The demand for something is the cause of the existence of the supply in the first place. Not physically participating in the act of rape does not absolve one iota of responsibility for it when such a market would not exist if there weren't people to buy into it. 2. Human nature also explains murder, bigotry, greed, rape of adults, slavery, and bullying. The fact that an action is an outlet for the natural human condition does not morally justify it in the slightest.

All of this, because I'm tired and don't have time for more of this shit.

Also, you (Seule) seemed bent on arguing with us about something that we never claimed in the first place: i.e. the innocence of pedophiles who haven't done anything wrong. In addition to the above, that Kelinci so eloquently simplified, you tried to use arguments that had no basis in fact or logic. Appeals to emotion and empathy, false cries of hypocrisy, and the good old "but everyone else is doing it" are not really argumentative tools you should be using when trying to carry on a discussion like this. Tactics like those get read as shit-flinging and strawmen.

Seule wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

No, Seule, I don’t think I will go home just yet.

Seule wrote:

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?

People SHOULD fucking think about the performers. Maye then they'd realise how goddamn skeevy the whole thing is.

Seule wrote:

Who watches and thinks of the people behind it as real live human beings?

So filmed porn is dehumanising. I hope you realise that runs counter to your earlier point of it being a harmless outlet for paedophiles.

Cyb. This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You are not representative, and you know that. Regardless of your opinion, most people don't think that porn is dehumanising,

You're. The one. Who said. People don't think about the performers. The real human beings. Who are in. Pornographic. Films.

YOU said it. Not me.

Quote :

Also I didn't say that child porn was a "harmless outlet for paedophiles". Please point me to anywhere where I said anything even approaching that.

The whole THRUST of your fucking argument is "oh the people who watch porn are just following a human instinct, they get horny and watch child porn for ten minutes, it's not as bad as raping a child". Well I can tell you right now that if you consume enough pornography, it will begin to affect your view of whichever gender or age range you prefer. Any woman who's ever gone with a fella who only knows about sex from porn can tell you that. Holy fuck, Badger even brought up the point about child molesters insisting that THEIR VICTIMS SEDUCED THEM. Were these just the "bad eggs" who conjured this excuse out of thin air? Do you think that maybe presenting child rape as something loving and consensual and tying that into the reward of orgasm might have something to do with it?

Quote :

I said that drawn porn was harmless. Because it is. There are no people involved.

If you think drawn and written porn - adult or child - can't contain harmful messages and further dangerous myths, you are wrong.

Quote :

Quote :

Quote :

because "these people" are intrinsically evil and deserve no sympathy?

If you’re prepared to watch a real, human child being raped, because that’s what it is no matter how it “looks”, for your own sexual gratification, you don’t deserve sympathy.

And that's your opinion.

And it's your opinion that we should sympathise with poor souls who aren't content to just imagine raping a child when it comes to beating off, they simply must have a nice video of a real human child suffering the most gross violation of body and soul known to humans to get their jollies.

Seule wrote:

Quote :

Quote :

I hope you don't need me to tell you that Cyb's study example was meaningless

I didn’t say there was a cure, you fucking dumbass. I said that the study showed a forty per cent success rate in the short term, for child molesters (which may be paedophiles, sadists or psychopaths). Learn to read. There’s no CURE. However, in a situation where child molesters cannot be locked up indefinitely and will inevitably be released, therapy should at least be attempted. Forty per cent translates into hundreds of children who will not be victimised.

Your study showed a "success rate", "in the short term" of 40% of 43 people.

A FORTY PERCENT SUCCESS RATE ACCORDING TO A META-STUDY OF FORTY-THREE STUDIES, YOU FUCKING DUMBASS. PUT ON YOUR READING EYES, CLOWN.

Predators, Anna C. Salter, PhD - Chapter 4: Child Molesters wrote:

The best estimates today, based on an analysis of forty-three studies of treatment and reoffense rates, is that current methods of cognitive-behavioral treatment can reduce sexual offending by close to half in the relatively short run. [48] The impact of treatment can be summed up in an odds ratio of .60. Not every offender would reoffend without treatment, of course, but for those who would, treatment can make a difference. Out of every one hundred offenders who would have reoffended, sixty would still reoffend with treatment.


[48]. Hanson et al. (2002)

I'm getting a little confused by Seule's comparisons of adult porn and child porn and the viewer's perception of the people being filmed. Pointing out that adult porn is dehumanising too is fine, but then that observation appears to be used to say that CP is as okay as AP and not that AP is just as bad as CP in that one respect.

I don't know what the heck Seule is trying to say, but that's what I'm getting from the 'who think about adult performers?' question.

I now regret posting.

Against my better judgement, I'm coming out of the shadows now.

I, personally, think that rape is wrong, regardless of the subject being forced into sexual contact. It harms everyone, not just children. I think that most, if not all, members in this argument would agree with me. Children, women, men and animals all need to be protected from rape. Child rape or animal rape seems to incite people more because it's commonly said that these two subjects are completely unable to stand up for themselves, prevent what occurs or, in some cases, even know that it's wrong.

Now, before it can be said by someone else: yes, a lot of adult actresses(or actors) in rape fantasy porn are simply acting. However, there is a market for ACTUAL rape being filmed. I would assume that the same can be said for "fake" child porn (an 18 year old actress/actor pretending to be younger) versus real child porn; particularly if a viewer is into children under 12, which would be hard for an 18 year old to impersonate.

This subject is so controversial because of a totally separate controversy about rape porn encouraging the viewers to perform these acts themselves. I'm sure that this is true for some viewers, but not others, which makes it very hard to say, without a doubt, whether all forms of rape porn should be illegal, real or otherwise. Many involved in the argument do not want to take the chance, it seems. I, personally, agree with them and feel that it shouldn't be placed into viewers' minds more than it already is, simply because seeing something can cause it to occupy your thoughts.

However... the actual law is that many forms of sexual assault, child sexual abuse, sex with animals, polygamy (and more that I don't want to take the time to list here) "may be legally role-played between consenting partners of legal age" (quote from Wikipedia because I'm lazy and figure people already know this).

Anecdote time! A close friend of mine had rape fantasies. He read several erotica stories involving rape and found them very stimulating. He shared them with his wife and they decided to play out a rape scenario themselves. During their roleplay, he became disturbed because his wife was such a good actress; he couldn't help but wonder if he was really hurting her or taking her against her will. They stopped and have not since tried to revisit that fantasy.

I wouldn't say that he should be arrested for thinking about it, or playing it out with his consensual partner. He obviously felt that real rape was wrong (as shown by his reaction). On the other hand, even though he was responsible enough to make sure that his situation was a safe environment for exploration, I don't think that everyone would be, or has been.

While I don't feel an attraction to children (or animals, or other women, for that matter), I don't think that anyone who does is necessarily bad/evil/sick/whatever. I think that someone who would act on this attraction in a negative way (rape) is quite sick. So I feel that the middle stepping stone - watching someone pretend to act on that attraction in a negative way - is not good at all. But that's because I think that it IS a middle stepping stone and it shouldn't exist.



TL;DR:: You can disagree with me about A leading to B leading to C... but I think we all agree that C (in this case, raping a child) is wrong. A (being attracted to children) may not be wrong, if never acted upon in a negative way. B (watching someone else rape a child) is, in my opinion, just as wrong as C because it can (in many cases, HAS) lead to C.

Edit: Damn, that was long. I hope that I explained myself clearly enough to avoid being misunderstood.

Jabberwockee wrote:

Now, before it can be said by someone else: yes, a lot of adult actresses(or actors) in rape fantasy porn are simply acting. However, there is a market for ACTUAL rape being filmed. I would assume that the same can be said for "fake" child porn (an 18 year old actress/actor pretending to be younger) versus real child porn; particularly if a viewer is into children under 12, which would be hard for an 18 year old to impersonate.

That depends on the 18-year-old. Some adults are very short and look much, much younger than they really are. When I took a class on human sexuality in college, one of the things the instructor said about pedophilia is that some pedophiles will engage in consensual sex with very young-looking adults, which is legal and, so long as the sex is consensual, not harmful.

There's a difference between a predatory pedophile (one who molests children) and a non-predatory pedophile (one who is attracted to children but does not act on the attraction). Rape is always wrong, regardless of what excuse is used. Fantasizing and jacking off, however, or reading skeezy comics or writing loli badfic (or engaging in consensual sex with young-looking adults or doing age-play) does not harm children. If a person goes beyond these sorts of things and molests a child, they need to be imprisoned. It doesn't matter if they perceived the child as coming on to them. Some children who have been molested will confuse the act with love and affection, especially if the molester is someone they trust and want the approval of, and such children sometimes do try to "come on" to adults. It isn't that the child is genuinely sexually attracted to the adult, but rather that they have been led to believe that this is the way to gain their love. Predatory pedophiles will take advantage of that, and the child will be harmed again.

I agree with everything you just said, 100%.

My personal feelings are that, when people are predisposed to take step after step deeper into a topic or fantasy or obsession, even the non-harmful methods (fanfiction, drawing, etc) become a definite stepping stone to the more dangerous (porn and pics) and then possibly to the illegal (rape, seduction, molestation, enticing). It's just adding the material into your thoughts, you know? Same reason with why I don't watch horror movies - I'm far more predisposed to irrational fear/freaking out when I hear the smallest noise outside at night.

I think that a lot of people agree with that outlook, and that's why looking at the child porn is seen as being equally as bad (morally) as child rape and molestation. The fact of supply-and-demand-for-child-porn-affecting-the-amount-of-child-porn-being-made-through-child-rape can be seen as a factor for the legal equality of the two things as well (looking vs making). But, that point was already made by several others earlier in the thread.

Plus, with something so sensitive and potentially harmful... most people don't want to take the chance. I would certainly feel less comfortable with letting my child around someone who was attracted to children (or even, say, if I'd seen them reading child-based erotica), even if they had never touched a child or even watched child pornography. Because there is always the "what if?" and the doubt in the back of your mind.

But, like I said, that's entirely my personal opinion and interpretation of the reactions of other people towards the question "is watching child porn as bad as making it?"