should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?

[rickymooston]

EDIT: I second examination, maybe I can see why somebody might see it sexually. :O WHat strikes me more than anything is her face, eyes and hair. WHen I step away from the photo, that is what I remember. Her expression is a confident one. Her expression isn't sexual to me. She doesn't appear to be flirtng. She is basically smiling at the camera and she has lip stick on.

A woman posing so her figure is sort of visible can certainly be taken sexually.

She looks about 20 to me but sometimes age is hard to know, especially from a photo. I'd not be shocked if she were in fact 15.

I can understand wby the photo in question disturbs you.

The photogrspher in question sounds unethical at the very least and the parents must be nuts.

:)You're only saying that because of her comments. If you had seen the same photo on a coworkers Facebook page with the title "our daughter by the pool in Disneyland" you would have thought nothing bad about it.

Remember, i didnt see the photo but if you read my post carefully, you will see i suggested lots of innocent photos could be interpreted sexually. Her comments suggested that thhotigrapher used sexual language
In directing the model and she suggested an eye witness account. I have some issues with that.






I do not have issues with this photo and I would not say the model looks "powerless" but confident in herself. If this is the photo in question, I am surprised.

I would be surprised if the model here turned out to be 15 but it is not a sexual photo in my opinion. The fact that a guy may interpret it that way is not my concern. In Ottawa, a rapist targeted a woman in a hijab working in a chemical lab.

Now to me, some women in hijab's have very sexy eyes and smiles but the intent of the hihab is to desexualize the woman. The rapist in qustion likely saw her as an object of hate but some men have hijab fetishes.

My point was, partly agreeing with you Joe, is some of this is in the eye of the beholder. None the less, an ethical photographer or teacher or parent working with teens, should respect certain boundries in the name
Of common decency.

Notice the harsh highlights in her hair and shoulders? Where is the sun? Almost directly overhead and to her left. Her head is dipped down and slightly to the right to shade her eyes, not to 'make her look powerless'.

My God, Joe, you guys notic e too much.

Her bathing suit bottoms are clearly visible. If the photographer didn't want them to be seen you wouldn't see them.

I didn't noitice this. My first thought was radiant smile, nice eyes. Nice outfit.

Her eyebrows are not raised. She is Asian, her eyelid lacks a double fold and her eyes are not set as deep in their sockets as other races, this gives the appearance of a greater distance between the eye and the eyebrow.

The photo must have been taken by a westerner. It is my pet peeve that Asians models are forced to get eye surgery to artificially introduce a double fold in many cases.

P.S. As to the straight man qusetion, i would say the girl in the photo is rather attracive. I don't think the photo is one that is "arousing". If I was aroused by this photo, I would be aroused by almost anything.

The girl in this photo is NOT submissive, imo.

[rickymooston]

.
Like to look at sexy pictures of beautiful women?  Do you think that the pictures that you like to look at represent real, beautiful female sexuality? 

Yes. I get turned on by women who are intensionally flirting with me and who are in full control. Angelina Joile for example, could seduce me with a smile. She has also be in states of undress in poses I found arosing. It is often more sexuy to imply rather than to show explicitly but in an "inviting" way.

It is true, that sometimes women "send signals" to my brain that they don't intend to; e.g, it turns me on when a woman I am attracted to plays with her hair.

Here is a little test that you can conduct yourself if you are unsure if the pose is really sexy, or some contrived male misconception of a woman’s sexuality.  Imagine yourself in that pose. (Make appropriate adjustments for male anatomy.)  Then ask yourself, would you, could you, feel sexy in that physical position?

Well, I don't consider the pose by this model to be particularly sexy. However, she is clearly comfortable in
that pose and you can see that from her unforced smile.

As a guy, for me to feel sexy, I would have to emphasive a trait that women find attrative in me. Since I don't have an athletic body, that would not likely be posing in "sexy positions" or in states of undress.

Now, if I was a physically attractive guy, I could potentially feel differently. Its hard to know. It might also depend on the type of women I want to attract.

Me feeling sexy is related to how I think others view me and not how I view myself per say.

  If the answer is no, it is pretty safe to assume that the woman doesn’t feel sexy in that position either, and that this is not an accurate portrait of female sexuality. You’ve probably been duped.

I disagree with this statement.

It is based on a feminist idea that you have women objectified and that men are not in some way objectified.. Sex is a very natural and both sexs have fantasies of the other. I think, women are less visual than men and that sexy may be more mental for them.

My ex-g for example, used to joke about being turned on by "v-shaped chests", v-shaped wallets, square jaws, confidence and handi-men. The fact that the man was "useful" was attractve to her. I have found most women I dated wanted a man who was in some way "useful". This sexual selection criterion is also a form of objectification. I'm ok with it lol.

By the way, I personally don't find women who are vulnerable sexy, except in a way that provokes me to be "protective"

Every human is different. THe above is just an off the cuff description of what turns me on.

[pianodwarf]

Notice the harsh highlights in her hair and shoulders? Where is the sun? Almost directly overhead and to her left. Her head is dipped down and slightly to the right to shade her eyes, not to 'make her look powerless'.

My God, Joe, you guys notic e too much.

If I could just point out, by the way: Joe is a professional photographer.  Lighting is something that he's going to notice, probably sometimes without really even thinking about it.

[rickymooston]

Notice the harsh highlights in her hair and shoulders? Where is the sun? Almost directly overhead and to her left. Her head is dipped down and slightly to the right to shade her eyes, not to 'make her look powerless'.

My God, Joe, you guys notic e too much.

If I could just point out, by the way: Joe is a professional photographer.  Lighting is something that he's going to notice, probably sometimes without really even thinking about it.

True

[Quesi]

The NY Times Magazine just published a 13 page article about rampant sexual abuse of children at an elite Manhattan school in the 1970’s and 80’s.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/magazine/the-horace-mann-schools-secret-history-of-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 

Most of people interviewed for this article didn’t protest their introduction to sexuality at the hands of their much older teachers.   Many of them continued to willing meet privately with these teachers, and for some, the sexual relations sometimes continued for years. 

Here is a very short exert from the very long article. 

Thirty or even 40 years later, many students who have talked about surviving their teachers’ abuse say they still live in its shadow. “I spent decades feeling unlovable,” said E. B., the creator of the anti-Somary Web site. “I drank and drugged for many years, because I just couldn’t face all the anger it brought up.”

Andrew, my friend from the camping trip, said: “You spend a lot of your life feeling like an outsider — it shatters you. These people who were supposed to be the good guys were actually the bad guys, and nobody would talk about it.”

M., the one who says Somary abused him for years, also feels the effects. “I have had so many issues that I think I can trace back to this,” he said, including drug abuse and broken marriages. “I have been running from this thing most of my life.”

Stories like theirs point to why sexual abuse by teachers — or religious leaders or relatives, for that matter — is so especially damaging. As Mones said: “It’s counterintuitive, but sexual abuse emotionally binds the child closer to the person who has harmed him, setting him up for a life plagued by suspicion and confusion, because he will never be sure who he can really trust. And in my experience, this is by far the worst consequence of sexual abuse.” That’s one reason, he said, why those few victims who ever speak out at all tend to do so only after the abuser is dead or dying: telling the truth while the other person is still strong enough to deny it, or to blame the accuser, is just too terrifying.

[Gnu Ordure]

First of all, I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by the content of the third paragraph in my original post on this thread.  Human sexuality is a complex reality, and I believe that my profile of “who” the photo would appeal to was an over simplification.  It was not my intention to offend the heterosexual men on this forum who were simply aroused by the pretty girl in the photo.

I don't think anyone was offended, Quesi. The problem was that you were drawing definite conclusions on the basis of reactions to a single photo.   

I stand by every other word in the post. (which was reply #72) and I challenge anyone to find any inaccuracies in my observations.

I disgreed with your perception of the photo and your deconstruction of it.

First of all, we don't know the circumstances and purpose of the photo. You've assumed that the girl was trying to look sexy, but as Joe has pointed out the photo could be easily be a family snapshot taken by her mother on holiday. There's no overt sexual theme; sure, she's wearing a biklini, but she's by a pool so that's appropriate. (If she was wearing lingerie by the pool, that would have been more sexual; or if she'd been wearing the bikini on a bed, likewise). She isn't "parting her lips to appear longing" - she's merely smiling. And lots of women like to keep their hair dry when swimming.

As for the pose (as you describe it - contorted, head-down, eyes up, submissive) it's entirely possible that she is in fact sitting naturally with her feet in the pool, and holding a book in her hands. Mom on a chair says, Look up, sweetie, and takes the snap. No sexual element to the photo at all.

That deconstruction makes just as much sense as yours.

Like to look at sexy pictures of beautiful women?

Most men do.

Do you think that the pictures that you like to look at represent real, beautiful female sexuality?

They represent the visual aspect of their sexuality. Other aspects of sexuality such as intelligence, passion and a good sense of humour are rather difficult to photograph.

Imagine yourself in that pose. (Make appropriate adjustments for male anatomy.)  Then ask yourself, would you, could you, feel sexy in that physical position?  If the answer is no, it is pretty safe to assume that the woman doesn’t feel sexy in that position either, and that this is not an accurate portrait of female sexuality. You’ve probably been duped.

As I said, there is no evidence that she was feeling sexy - or that the photographer was trying to make her look sexy.

But if we assume that she was, your test still fails, because there are lots of men out there who like to be sexually dominated by women. If you want to see photos of men in submissive postures, google femdom. And presumably these men do indeed feel sexy while being submissive.



PS Ricky, you really should get up to speed on this thread; you making comments on the photo before even seeing it was highly confusing. Note also that the original point of the thread appears to have been been abandoned, and the original poster has gone. We are now discussing Joe's desire to label himself a paedophile, as well as Quesi's views on pornography.

[Quesi]

First of all, we don't know the circumstances and purpose of the photo. You've assumed that the girl was trying to look sexy, but as Joe has pointed out the photo could be easily be a family snapshot taken by her mother on holiday.

I don't think so.  I think it has joe's signature all over it.  It looks just like every photo he has ever posted on this forum, and it looks like every photo on links to his work that he has provided in other threads.  They are ALL young, beautiful Asian women, in contorted, submissive, slightly suggestive positions. They all have expressions on their faces that feel contrived.  And he is really skilled with lighting effects and shadows.     

I have been tempted to comment on his work in the past, but I didn't because it usually had nothing to do with the thread. But this time, while posting his work and promoting himself as a pedophile, I could not help but verbalize the relationship.

BTW Gnu Ordure, I did not respond to your questions about age of consent here yesterday, but Tim started a new thread on the topic this morning, and I tried to address your questions there. 

[rickymooston]

I never said I'd seduce a 13 year old if I could. Find her attractive? Sure. Fantasize about it? Sure. But I wouldn't do anything that I felt would harm her or that I thought she couldn't fully comprehend and consent to.

It is good to know that you wouldnt

In terms of fantasizing actively, dont you feel a bit guilty there?

Are you attracted to women in their 20s? I mean, china has a lot of pretty nice women who are actually of age.

[Gnu Ordure]

First of all, we don't know the circumstances and purpose of the photo. You've assumed that the girl was trying to look sexy, but as Joe has pointed out the photo could be easily be a family snapshot taken by her mother on holiday.

I don't think so.

I do, for the reasons I've given. In my opinion, that photo would not be out of place in a family snapshot album.

And please bear in mind, I'm making that judgment on that photo in isolation, ignorant of who took it and or why it was taken.

I think it has joe's signature all over it.  It looks just like ... <snip>

I have been tempted to comment on his work in the past, but I didn't because it usually had nothing to do with the thread.

Ah, OK, Quesi. So when you said in your first post:

I think it is a photo that would appeal to the kind of man who wants control over a submissive woman, (or girl, and that is very telling in itself)

... that was kind of aimed at Joe particularly? Based on your previous knowledge of his own photos (which I'm not familiar with)?

And so Azdgari and I got tarred with the same brush; on request, we said we found a single image sexy, and suddenly we're labelled dominants. To which we objected, because we're not.

BTW Gnu Ordure,

Du call me Gnu.

I did not respond to your questions about age of consent here yesterday, but Tim started a new thread on the topic this morning, and I tried to address your questions there.

Cool, I'll check it out.

Quesi, I was trying to think of images of women I like, opposite to Joe's photo. In my teens, this picture was memorable:



Interesting to compare the two photos. They're both wearing exactly the same clothes, in appropriate circumstances. Neither of them are in a sexual situation. Neither of them are wearing obvious make-up. Ursula is alarmed (she's just met Bond, unexpectedly), Joe's girl is friendly. Ursula's posture is upright and assertive, Joe's girl is contorted and submissive. The camera looks up at Ursula, down at Joe's girl. Ursula is a woman, Joe's girl is a girl.

And Ursula's got a great big knife, and looks like she knows how to use it. 

So I'd like to know what you think about Ursula's photo. Do you approve or disapprove of it?

And that scene was apparently voted one of the sexiest scenes in movie history, so I'm not alone in my perception that strong assertive women can be attractive.

Looking at it again, I love her retort to Bond's reassurance:

Bond: I promise I won't steal your shells.
Honey: I promise you you won't either. - draws knife.

Remind yourselves:


And the thing is, Quesi, I think they're both beautiful. And I'm guessing that many straight men, lesbians and bisexuals feel the same.

[Nam]

y

the victims need not be killed or anything just the offenders themselves. the people who actually do it.
yeah i realise that ms such and such of whatever town was molested by her stepfather from age 6 up to 18 . but she has love for him bc hes family and her kids love him too. still. he did this horrible thing and perhaps deserves death. he fucked her up for life. like permanant. i would have no issue helping victims but would not waste my time "helping" a sexual predator due to the simple facts of 1 i dont care to do so..and 2 they need help i can not provide except the obvious advice of suicide.
yes my views on life are far from what most call "normal" and im most content with this. but seriosuly does anyone have bananna pudding recipe ??

Perhaps it's been stated already, I don't know but you do realize that many child molesters are the way they are, mentally, 'cause they too were molested as children. So, they are both "victim" and "criminal".

-Nam

[Nam]

I'm a pedophile.[1] I'm sexually attracted to young teenagers especially but sometimes even younger if they've developed a bit. Budding breasts, long legs. What's not to like? Some people are attracted to even younger children, and though I'm not I don't think anyone is in any position to judge them for it. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or pedophile.

Why would I admit to this? Just like homosexuals and atheists, pedophiles are shunned and persecuted unfairly. Society likes to vilify people like me but I don't buy into the propaganda and neither should you. I'm not a bad person. It's perfectly natural to be attracted to females of breeding age.

In the US, children as young as 9 have been tried as adults in criminal court. 11 and 12 year olds regularly. It's hypocritical to say that a 9 year old is capable of making rational decisions that they must be held responsible for but a 17 year old isn't. Until of course suddenly they receive a magical clarity of thought on their 18th birthday.

I don't think 9 year olds should be tried as adults for the same reason that I wouldn't have sex with a 9 year old girl.  I'm a big fan of informed consent.  I would never have sex with someone who I didn't feel knew full well what they were doing, and understood the physical and emotional ramifications of their actions, and was participating completely of their own free will.

Someone who is attracted to very young children but does not act on that attraction is harmless. Persecuting that person would be thought crime.

I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized, but I don't have time right now to write about it. Feel free to post all of your disagreements and I'll come back in a couple of hours to explain how you're wrong. Do your research before you say something stupid though. You should know that several federal judges as well as many prominent intellectuals share my thoughts on this.

1.	Don't bother to correct my spelling. This is the correct spelling in common modern English.

Child porn would be children committing sexual acts on each other and/or adults. And, you think that that should be legalized? You're an idiot.

Why are you an idiot? 'Cause you said it yourself: a child isn't mentally developed to understand what they are doing, but, also: they aren't even physically mature. But since you think sexually explicit pictures and/or film of children performing felatio, intercourse, and the like, yeah: we shouldn't judge you.

Or did you mean by "child porn" just naked pictures of children? 'Cause that's not what most people think of when the word "porn" is used.

-Nam

[Nam]

I am a heterosexual male, joebbowers picture of a young female, in a bikini: first thought: and? I've seen many girls half naked. I have seen many girls naked, in person, and in pictures. She's pretty. I am not sexually attracted to her, and it has nothing to do with whether she's sexy or not. I'm not attracted to every girl I see, sexually, or otherwise.

-Nam

[rickymooston]

I'm not a bad person. It's perfectly natural to be attracted to females of breeding age.

...I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized, but I don't have time right now to write about it. Feel free to post all of your disagreements and I'll come back in a couple of hours to explain how you're wrong. Do your research before you say something stupid though. You should know that several federal judges as well as many prominent intellectuals share my thoughts on this.

I dont care if some rare legal "expert" agrees with you. And btw, i dont thi k it is appropriate to use srxua,ized language in admitti g your attraction. Sure yiu are sttracted. You dont need to describe "budding breasts" or whatever.

Willful posession of child porn is wrong because it encourages those who produce it in the first place. I have no clue whether the existence of child porn increases the number of child rapes or not.

I agree, based on your posts, you may not be a bad person. That is, to my understanding you have not commited rape or expressed a desire to commit rape.

It is true that at one time in human histroy that the real logical age was mch younger. In our society, its not beneficial for children to have sex at age of 11 or even 14.  Sure, the age of 18 is somewhat arbitrary.

As for your point about people being tried in adult court; that is tyoically because they milled somebody

[Azdgari]

... And btw, i dont thi k it is appropriate to use srxua,ized language in admitti g your attraction. Sure yiu are sttracted. ...

Just as an aside, Ricky - did you type this on some sort of mobile device?

[rickymooston]

Yes, i hate touch screens. On my playbook, some websites are really slow. This is another problem

[One Above All]

If the 30 old had self control, was mature, responsible, he woujld be chasing somebody who is legal.

rickymooston, I want you to really think about what pedophilia is, and why "self-control" or "maturity" or "responsibility" would allow/force someone to be sexually attracted to someone else.

I'm assuming you didn't read this, so here it is.

[jaimehlers]

Sexual attraction to a minor (whether it is a prepubescent child or a pubescent adolescent is irrelevant for this statement) is not a crime in its own right.  Acting on it is what makes it a crime.

As for child porn, this is not having pictures of children in suggestive positions.  It's having pictures of children engaged in sexual activity.  The latter is unquestionably wrong if it involved actual children; the former is a grey area.

[joebbowers]

I dont care if some rare legal "expert" agrees with you.

From an Associated Press article...[1]

In a 2010 survey of federal judges by the Sentencing Commission, about 70 percent said the proposed ranges of sentences for possession and receipt of child pornography were too high. Demonstrating their displeasure, federal judges issued child porn sentences below the guidelines 45 percent of the time in 2010, more than double the rate for all other crimes.

70% of federal judges are in favor of reducing sentences, and many are in favor of decriminalization. They aren't rare and your use of quotation marks suggests you don't believe they're experts. These are people who deal with the offenders regularly. They know more about them than you do, they know their criminal histories, they know what other offenses they've committed. These are the people who would know if possession of child porn leads to more abuse, and yet these people are clamoring for leniency for people caught with it. I'd like you know what makes you more qualified than they are to determine whether or not these people should be punished?

Willful posession of child porn is wrong because it encourages those who produce it in the first place.

How? It's usually downloaded anonymously and without paying for it.

I have no clue whether the existence of child porn increases the number of child rapes or not.

Study after study has proven that access to pornography leads to a decrease in sexual crime.[2][3][4] I find it quite disturbing that even after being made aware of this fact, most people still advocate the complete ban of child pornography. But since even pornographic drawings and stories are also illegal, it's obvious that it's not really about protecting kids, but really about banning things that make them you uncomfortable. It's the same reason there are still so many anti-homosexuality laws on the books.

1.	http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/debate-rages-over-severity-child-porn-sentences/
2.	http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf
3.	http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf
4.	Sexual Science and the Law, Richard Green, Harvard University Press, 1992

[joebbowers]

As for child porn, this is not having pictures of children in suggestive positions.  It's having pictures of children engaged in sexual activity.  The latter is unquestionably wrong if it involved actual children; the former is a grey area.

It's not "unquestionably" wrong as it is widely questioned. Did you know that it is legal to possess child pornography in many countries, including Japan and Denmark? And these countries have seen a significant decrease in child sex abuse cases since it's legalization.

Did you know that the ACLU often represents people caught with child pornography, and that the organization's official stance is in support of legalization of it's possession?

According to a study headed by Professor Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, in countries where child porn has been legalized the rate of child sex abuse has fallen significantly.

Researchers focused on the Czech Republic, which went from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a fairly relaxed environment when owning pornographic material became decriminalized in 1989. The study then looked at the number of rape, attempted rape, sexual assault and child sex abuse for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted. They found a significant decrease in the number of reported cases of child sex abuse. The press release notes similar findings in Denmark and Japan when child pornography was no longer restricted.[1]

Why is it wrong to possess? Can you explain how the anonymous possession of it harms anyone?

It has been clearly demonstrated by the results of multiple studies conducted by multiple independent sources in multiple countries that the legalization of possession of child pornography would lead to fewer incidences of child sexual assault.

I want to ask everyone, in light of this fact, why do you still oppose it's legalization?

If you disagree with the methods or the results of the studies I mentioned in this post and in my last post, please explain why, and please also explain how you are more qualified than the authors of the studies to make such statements.

1.	Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior.

[joebbowers]

I don't think anyone was offended, Quesi. The problem was that you were drawing definite conclusions on the basis of reactions to a single photo.

I was offended, I believe Adzgari was as well.

[Quesi]

You know Joe, we spend a lot of time on this forum discussing the differences between facts and theories and beliefs.  Beliefs are easy.  Anyone can find someone on the internet who agrees with their beliefs.

I really expected you to cite studies (or opinions) stating that there was no causal relationship between the consumption of child pornography and child abuse.   I can actually find some folks who argue that, and I’m surprised that you didn’t.  What you cited was a Fox News article expressing concerns that the current trends for sentencing consumers of child pornography sometimes exceeded the sentences for those convicted of child abuse.  And a book by a guy from Harvard who writes primarily about transgendered youth, with no indication of anything he has written about child pornography or pedophilia. 

If you want to find strong advocates for your position, you should cite NAMBLA.  http://www.nambla.org/

I don’t think you have presented irrefutable truth here.  There are certainly those who agree with you.  And there are those who disagree with you. 

Among those who offer differing opinions are

The Harvard Medical Journal, http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/references-for-the-evolving-understanding-of-stigma 

The Mayo Clinic http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036  and the

American Federal Bureau of Prisons.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

And we have not addressed the harm done to children in the creation of child porn. 

[joebbowers]

I don't think so.  I think it has joe's signature all over it.  It looks just like every photo he has ever posted on this forum, and it looks like every photo on links to his work that he has provided in other threads.  They are ALL young, beautiful Asian women, in contorted, submissive, slightly suggestive positions. They all have expressions on their faces that feel contrived.  And he is really skilled with lighting effects and shadows.     

I have been tempted to comment on his work in the past, but I didn't because it usually had nothing to do with the thread. But this time, while posting his work and promoting himself as a pedophile, I could not help but verbalize the relationship.

On the one hand, I'm flattered by your opinion of the technical aspects of my photography, on the other hand, I'm insulted. I'm not insulted at your opinion of the content of the photography, as you're not my target audience. I'm insulted because the photographer of this particular shot made a mistake that I wouldn't have made. He cut off her hands. This is an amateur mistake by photographers too focused on the model's face that they tend to forget about the hands. To be fair, this may not have been the photographer's fault, it may have been cut off by whoever cropped the photo down.

My point is, it isn't my photo.

For everyone...

I'd like to reiterate yet again that I never asked for opinions on the photo itself, the pose, her clothing, or the photographer's intentions. I did not ask you whether or not you wanted to have a one night stand with her, as someone seemed to think I was. I asked whether or not you thought she was sexually attractive. You can imagine her in any scenario and outfit you wish, they are irrelevant to the question.

Also, I do not want you to say no simply because you think I'm tricking you with a photo of a young girl. Obviously that's what I'm doing, it's not a trick, it's to prove a point. If you deny her attractiveness for this reason then you're not being honest.

[One Above All]

joebbowers, you really need to stop poisoning the well[1]. People who disagree with you aren't lying. They just disagree with you. You are not always right.

1.	Not sure if that's grammatically accurate, but you get the point.

[joebbowers]

I really expected you to cite studies (or opinions) stating that there was no causal relationship between the consumption of child pornography and child abuse.   I can actually find some folks who argue that, and I’m surprised that you didn’t.  What you cited was a Fox News article expressing concerns that the current trends for sentencing consumers of child pornography sometimes exceeded the sentences for those convicted of child abuse.  And a book by a guy from Harvard who writes primarily about transgendered youth, with no indication of anything he has written about child pornography or pedophilia. 

The article was written by the Associated Press, and Fox News printed it on their website. It includes sources. I've also linked to other studies, what specific disagreements do you have with them? There are plenty more I can link if you want. What makes you qualified to dispute them?

If you want to find strong advocates for your position, you should cite NAMBLA.  http://www.nambla.org/

Lucifer will probably smite me for this[1], but you've just used a strawman. You see, NAMBLA is advocating sex with children, whereas I've specifically explained why I think sex with children is wrong. NAMBLA is for legalizing the production of child pornography. I have specifically explained that I am only in favor of legalizing the possession, not the production. But you already knew all of that, and you think that be equating me with NAMBLA you will shame me or vilify me somehow.

Among those who offer differing opinions are

The Harvard Medical Journal, http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/references-for-the-evolving-understanding-of-stigma 

Behind a paywall. Can't read it.

The Mayo Clinic http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036

There is no mention in that article that consumption of child pornography leads to rape, nor is there any refutation of the claim that it's availability lessens the likelihood of occurrence.

American Federal Bureau of Prisons.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

Ditto here. In fact, their statement "many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters" not only does not imply a causal relationship between pornography and molestation, but the same could be said of non-child rapists. "Many [adult] pornography consumers may be undetected [adult] molesters." I'll let you in on a little secret. Most men watch porn. Some of them are rapists. While most rapists (regardless of the age, sex, or species of their victim) watch porn, I should point out the obvious fact that most porn watchers do not commit rape.

And we have not addressed the harm done to children in the creation of child porn.

Haven't we? I've stated several times that the production should remain illegal.

1.	He never seems to recognize them.

[joebbowers]

joebbowers, you really need to stop poisoning the well[1]. People who disagree with you aren't lying. They just disagree with you. You are not always right.

1.	Not sure if that's grammatically accurate, but you get the point.

I didn't accuse anyone of doing it, I just hope nobody is. And that is not the correct use of poisoning the well.

[One Above All]

I didn't accuse anyone of doing it, I just hope nobody is.

I was specifically referring to your claim that anyone who doesn't think that girl in the picture is attractive must be lying. This may surprise you, but different people find different things attractive. For example, some might think she's too skinny. Others might think she's too fat. And so on ad nauseam.

And that is not the correct use of poisoning the well.

You used that fallacy by claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must be lying. Is that a better way of putting it?

EDIT: Just a couple more (relevant) things.
1 - I go by "One Above All" now. Get with the program.
2 - I can recognize strawmen just fine, thank you.

On an unrelated note, you kinda remind me of myself when I was younger. I'll leave it up to you to determine whether that's good or bad. I'm 18, BTW. About a month away from 19. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

[joebbowers]

I didn't stipulate that finding her attractive means you must think she's the most beautiful girl who ever lived. I also don't ask anyone if they fell in love with her at first sight. I simply mean sexually viable, as in, based purely on her physical appearance, assuming everything else about her met your standards, (you're a dog person, she's a dog person, whatever floats your boat) would you have sex with her?

[One Above All]

I simply mean sexually viable, as in, based purely on her physical appearance, assuming everything else about her met your standards, (you're a dog person, she's a dog person, whatever floats your boat) would you have sex with her?

Then the answer would be no. It takes months, maybe years, to become attached to someone on the level required by me to have sex with someone.

[pianodwarf]

I didn't stipulate that finding her attractive means you must think she's the most beautiful girl who ever lived. I also don't ask anyone if they fell in love with her at first sight. I simply mean sexually viable, as in, based purely on her physical appearance, assuming everything else about her met your standards, (whatever they may be) would you have sex with her?

This isn't entirely an academic question.

One time when I was gift shopping, I went into a Santa Fe-type place and was greeted by one of the most beautiful women I'd ever seen in my life.  Apart from being gorgeous, she was also very warm and friendly -- when I came in, she looked at me and beamed this huge smile at me and said "Hi!  It's great to see you!" as though I were her best friend that she hadn't seen in a year.

I don't normally do the pickup thing, but in this case, I decided to make an exception, so I started chatting with her.  The end of the conversation went something like this:

Me:  So is this a Summer job for you, then?
Her:  Yeah, enough to cover expenses and stuff, you know.
Me:  Definitely, I'm doing the same thing.  So what are you, a junior?
Her:  No, I'm a freshman.
Me:  Ah.  Have you decided on a major yet?
Her:  No, not yet, I've got a little while to think about that.
Me:  Yeah, that's true.  So where do you go, George Mason University?
Her:  No, Springfield High.

At this point, our eyes locked.  Silence for several seconds, and then:

Me:  You're a... freshman in, high school...?
Her, looking like she was about to bust a gut laughing because she knew perfectly well what I was up to: Mm--hmm!!!

Blink blink.  Look around.  Look at watch.  "Wow, look at that.  No wonder I'm so hungry, it's almost two o'clock.  I'm going to go get something to eat.  Bye!"  I somehow managed not to leave skidmarks.

I was absolutely mortified at the time, although now that ten or fifteen million years have passed, I can see the humor in it.  Now, though, I also see that it's informative and telling.