should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?

[pianodwarf]

my opinion NO !!!!!!!
whats yours and why ?

Are you talking about the desire, or the behavior?[1]  You do realize, don't you, that most pedophiles never act on their feelings because they know it would be wrong?

1.	I don't think either should be punishable by death, but even so, this is an important distinction to be aware of.

[Seppuku]

I know what kind of reaction you might normally get Joe, not referring to reactions this forum might give but in general.

The main reason I disagree with paedophilia is because it's taking advantage of children who are not old enough to consent and having sex with somebody who does not/cannot give their consent is rape and that's a form of abuse and I find that sick. Also, the age of 'consent' varies country to country. I know in the UK it's 16 if both are under the age of 18.

I think after bearing that in mind it's down to it being 'icky' as they're too young and regardless of all the negative feelings associated with it, I commend you for being able to admit it. You've never actually abused a child (as far as I can tell from reading your post), so I am happy to leave those 'negative feelings' at the door.

I'm sure the attraction is natural as any other attraction is and I think the issue is a question of what you do about it. If people can have a natural attraction to people who are much older than them (like a MILF or even GILF fetish) then it must be natural for it to go the other way. You may never ever touch a child and still feel that attraction. I'm sure many out there do not wish to harm a child and choose not to. I think our social perception of paedophilia does make it a topic very difficult to talk about and I think maybe if it were an easier issue to discuss, maybe those who would never admit to be being a paedophile may not get help in controlling their emotions[1] before it's too late and then take advantage of a child.

I don't believe in the death penalty, I think it's really a last resort, for extreme situations - that doesn't translate as 'for extreme crimes' but in cases where execution may be the only option available, so it'd have to be where imprisonment is not a viable option and I'd argue that's rare. E.G. One could argue that sticking Saddam in jail would have been a bad idea.

If somebody abuses a child, be it sexually or in any other way, I think their punishment should be harsh because you've taken advantage of somebody who is vulnerable and it's likely there will be scars for life that the person will have to deal with and it isn't an easy road for them, so it shouldn't be easy for the criminal. I'd say anybody who rapes somebody should also be harshly punished and those who abuse somebody (husband or wife for example) should also be harshly punished. It's not right to take advantage of anybody like that, it's sick and it's effed up. I'd suggest kids are more vulnerable, therefore it's more effed up.

1.	at least those who are struggling to do so

[eye over you]

I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized, but I don't have time right now to write about it.

     What age would you like to see it become legal for children to start becoming porn stars? There is plenty of porn out that has over 18 females that could pass for a lot younger. Where do you draw the line???

[Seppuku]

I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

I think if we were to legalise anything here, it would be animated pornography, I think that'd be the only way of doing it without kids being hurt in the process. It's a grey area.

[eye over you]

I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

    I agree 100%.
     

[pianodwarf]

I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

    I agree 100%.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, how do you feel about films that are created purely with CGI (no human actors)?

[Gnu Ordure]

I'm a pedophile.

No, you're not.

One problem here is that paedophilia may be variably defined by doctors, or by criminal lawyers, or by the media/general public.

If we use the current medical definition (as defined in DSM-4), the feelings you describe don't qualify as paedophilia. Wiki correctly uses that definition:

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

You clearly state several times that you're not attracted to prepubescent children. So no psychiatrist would diagnose you as a paedophile.

This definition is going to be clarified in the next edition of DSM-4, by the way; it's going to incorporate the conditions of hebephilia (primary sexual attraction to early-pubescent children), and ephebophila (primary sexual attraction to late-pubescent children). Possibly you qualify as one of those, but note that such attractions must be primary.

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.

People should be judged on their actions, not their orientation; and paedophilic actions are demonstrably harmful and therefore rightly criminal.

I'm a big fan of informed consent.

Good. The problem here is that there is no objective test to measure whether an individual is old enough to consent to a particular action, be it getting married, or having sex, or receiving medical treatment. But societies have to draw these lines somewhere, so they do, and these lines are therefore somewhat arbitrary.

As individuals, it makes sense for us to operate within the law of whatever country we're in. 

I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized,

Possibly; but the production of child porn should be illegal. Do you agree?

[joebbowers]

I've already heard most of the arguments against child pornography, and frankly I don't find any of them any more convincing than the arguments against gay marriage.

Possession of child pornography creates demand and encourages more abuse.
Purchasing it would, which is why it should be illegal. Anonymous download without purchase would not. I'm in favor of legalizing the simple possession of child pornography, not the production, sale, or purchase.

Watching child porn victimizes the child all over again.
This is one of the most common arguments, and one of the weakest. How can someone be hurt by something that happens without their knowledge that will never affect them?

Have you ever fantasized about someone while masturbating, or even thought about someone else while having sex with your partner? A classmate? A co-worker? An ex-lover? A stranger? Maybe you've watched a hidden-camera sex tape or seen someone's home sex videos that they've uploaded to the internet without their lover's knowledge. Consider this. They did not consent to being a part of your sexual fantasy.

You used that person as an unwilling participant for your own sexual gratification. How do you feel about that? Do you think the person was hurt by your actions? Do you feel you should be put in prison for it? Of course not. They have no idea you did it and they were not harmed by it in any way.

Watching child porn will lead to the rape of more children.
Actually, it has been proven that greater access to pornography leads to a decrease in sexual crime. As everyone knows, pornography is an outlet for sexual energy. Since the advent of the internet (and subsequent proliferation of online porn) sex crimes have dropped nationwide. The biggest drops are in states that have the highest percentage of internet access per capita. Prisons which allow inmates to keep pornographic magazines in their cells have lower rates of sexual assaults.

Pedophiles are dangerous and will eventually rape a child.
The thinking here is that sexual attraction leads to rape. That's true. But that's true across all sexual orientations, not limited to pedophiles. Men rape adult women, men rape other men, men rape animals, and men rape children. Rape is present anywhere there are men. That's a fact.

The problem is assuming that all pedophiles will commit rape because they are sexually attracted to children. If you apply that same logic in other situations you immediately see the flaw in it. If that were true, all men who are attracted to women, men, or animals would also eventually commit rape. We simply know this is not the case.

The truth is that the vast majority of pedophiles will never commit rape for the same reason that the vast majority of men will never commit rape. They know it's wrong.

[eye over you]

I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

    I agree 100%.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, how do you feel about films that are created purely with CGI (no human actors)?

    I think people should be able to do whatever they want or enjoy whatever they want in fantasy or with consenting adults. I realize that not everyone who is turned on by kids is going to actually victimize an actual child. But taking pictures or making movies with children is watching someone actually being victimized! They are underage, should still be in school, and should not have to deal with people taking pictures of them so some adult has something to jack off to. I can't believe anybody could see it any different.

   Just to add, I'm not judging your sexual preference. I think there is a BIG difference between seeing a 14 yr old girl (or whatever) in your mind, and actually watching a 14 yr old girl in a pornographic situation.

[joebbowers]

I'm a pedophile.

No, you're not.

I get what you're trying to do, but that's just playing word-games. Society and the law do not agree with Wikipedia. In 2008 I was returning home from an international flight when I was singled out for a 'random' inspection at border control. I have kind of dark skin and I hadn't shaved in a couple of weeks, I was looking pretty middle-eastern. I knew I would get picked. They took my laptop, my camera, my phone, all of my memory cards and hard drives, then told me I was free to go, and that someone would contact me about getting my stuff back.

I heard nothing from them for almost a year. Finally I got a call telling me they had found child porn on my computer and that I wouldn't be getting it back. I had a lot of porn on that computer, the vast majority of it was (adult and legal) Japanese porn. I also had a lot of homemade videos of my girlfriends, all of whom would have appeared to be obviously at least 18. Whatever they found would have been a tiny fraction of the overall drive and was mostly Russian teens.

Yes despite knowing that I wasn't primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children, and with absolutely nothing to suggest that I had ever actually harmed a real child, they contacted my friends, my family, and many of my former colleagues and acquaintances to warn them that I was a pedophile and that they should not let me anywhere near their children.

People should be judged on their actions, not their orientation; and paedophilic actions are demonstrably harmful and therefore rightly criminal.

As long as you're agreeing that the thoughts themselves shouldn't be illegal. What would you think about simulated child pornography such as animations, stories, etc., that do not use real children? Under GW Bush, those were made illegal too, making it truly the only thought crime in US law.

The problem here is that there is no objective test to measure whether an individual is old enough to consent to a particular action, be it getting married, or having sex, or receiving medical treatment. But societies have to draw these lines somewhere, so they do, and these lines are therefore somewhat arbitrary.

I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

As individuals, it makes sense for us to operate within the law of whatever country we're in. 

I'm not a big fan of the appeal to authority. I don't think laws are always right or should be blindly followed.

Possibly; but the production of child porn should be illegal. Do you agree?

Yes.

[joebbowers]

Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)

[Gnu Ordure]

Joe:

Watching child porn victimizes the child all over again.

This is one of the most common arguments, and one of the weakest. How can someone be hurt by something that happens without their knowledge that will never affect them?

But what if they do know about it? What if the child grows up and becomes a celebrity actress/popstar, and it becomes known that she is the child being abused in the pornography? Do you think that that woman, as an adult, would consent to those pictures being published and available to anyone who wants to look at them?

I really don't think they would.

She couldn't consent to their publication as a child; and it's highly likely that she wouldn't consent as an adult. So the obvious conclusion is that she should be regarded as owning the copyright of the material, and unauthorized publication would be illegal on those grounds.

The same logic applies to non-celebrities as well. So ownership of all child pornography should be illegal.

Gnu.

PS I'm OK with computer-generated material or cartoons. No human beings are harmed in the making of it.

[pianodwarf]

Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)

Yes, I do.  And I have a hunch that you're now going to tell me how old she is...?  (Which is OK.  I'm mostly in agreement with your views on this.)

[joebbowers]

But what if they do know about it? What if the child grows up and becomes a celebrity actress/popstar, and it becomes known that she is the child being abused in the pornography? Do you think that that woman, as an adult, would consent to to those pictures being published and available to anyone who wants to look at them?

She may know it was produced and published, but how does she know you're watching it?

The same logic applies to non-celebrities as well. So ownership of all child pornography should be illegal.

Should all pornography be illegal if the participants did not consent to it's publication or distribution? It isn't now. Hidden camera sex tapes are legal as long as one person knows it's being recorded. Can you demonstrate that those who anonymously downloaded the videos harmed the victim, and not only the individuals who produced and distributed it?

This also ignores the fact that the availability of child porn serves as an outlet for sexual energy of pedophiles and that it's strict ban only leads to more incidences of real world sexual assaults.

[Quesi]

Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)

I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

I think that she is a very pretty young girl, who is intentionally posed in an unnatural position that contorts her and makes her look powerless.   The pose is designed to make it unclear if she is wearing bathing suit bottoms or not.  She was instructed to part her lips (so as to appear longing) and to lower her face and raise her eyes in a submissive pose.  She is wearing a wet bathing white bathing suit top (which looks suspiciously like a wet training bra) in spite of the fact that her long hair surrounding the suit is dry, adding to the false and contrived nature of the photo.

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) and has no interest in knowing anything about who she is and what she thinks and what she longs for. 

Her desires (and her real sexuality) are painfully absent from the photo. 

[Bad Pear]

It isn't now. Hidden camera sex tapes are legal as long as one person knows it's being recorded.

FYI: This is highly dependent on the jurisdiction. If we're talking about America, some states require the consent of all parties involved. Also, whether or not the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy can come into play.

[joebbowers]

I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

And what a predictably anti-man rant it was. Just what I was trying to avoid by qualifying my intended audience.

[joebbowers]

FYI: This is highly dependent on the jurisdiction. If we're talking about America, some states require the consent of all parties involved. Also, whether or not the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy can come into play.

Yet either way, it's the producers and the distributors who are held accountable, not the downloaders.

[Quesi]

Thank you Joe, for smiting me, and reminding me that I was out of place.  I understand that you were not soliciting opinions from women.  I will sit quietly from now on, unless you ask for a woman's opinion on women's sexuality. 

[Bad Pear]

One other thing: the distinction between the actual definition of pedophilia[1] and Joe's version[2] is largely based in public ignorance of the term. It's not all that dissimilar to the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial "theory".

In my hometown back in the States a year or so ago two men were arrested for engaging in sexual activity with a minor[3]. I knew all of them through the local theater that they and my wife were active in at the time. These men were not pedophiles. The law did not label them as such. The public did, albeit ignorantly. The law in such a case only went to age of consent, which is a separate issue.

1.	regarding prepubescent children
2.	regarding anyone under the local legal age of consent
3.	A young boy, somewhere between 14 and 16, I can't recall atm

[Bad Pear]

I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

And what a predictably anti-man rant it was. Just what I was trying to avoid by qualifying my intended audience.

I am a heterosexual, straight male and I do not find Quesi's post to be the least bit misandrous.

[Gnu Ordure]

I'm a pedophile.

No, you're not.

I get what you're trying to do, but that's just playing word-games.

I wasn't trying to do anything except give and apply the medical definition, which is appropriate to this subject. I admitted that other definitions are far wider, particularly in the media.

As individuals, it makes sense for us to operate within the law of whatever country we're in. 

I'm not a big fan of the appeal to authority. I don't think laws are always right or should be blindly followed.

Neither do I. I merely meant that as general rule, it's sensible to modify one's behaviour according to whatever society you're in. Particularly where the consequences of breaking a specific law are severe. Case in point:

In 2008 I was returning home from an international flight when I was singled out for a 'random' inspection at border control... etc etc

That's an unfortunate episode, as you didn't actually break a law; the only thing you can do in future is not take dubious material through customs. (Was that Vietnam, by the way?) 

As long as you're agreeing that the thoughts themselves shouldn't be illegal.

Yes, I am.

I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

I wouldn't call it hypocrisy, merely illogical.

She may know it was produced and published, but how does she know you're watching it?

I don't see how that's relevant.

Should all pornography be illegal if the participants did not consent to it's publication or distribution? It isn't now.

As Bad Pear said, those situations should be covered by invasion of privacy laws.

This also ignores the fact that the availability of child porn serves as an outlet for sexual energy of pedophiles and that it's strict ban only leads to more incidences of real world sexual assaults.

That doesn't justify it, in my opinion.

[Bad Pear]

FYI: This is highly dependent on the jurisdiction. If we're talking about America, some states require the consent of all parties involved. Also, whether or not the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy can come into play.

Yet either way, it's the producers and the distributors who are held accountable, not the downloaders.

Could you please describe for the court precisely how one downloads a file in the absence of a distributor of some kind? I am not saying that there cannot be exceptions, but does not the illegality of possession generally logically follow from the illegality of the distribution?

[pianodwarf]

One other thing: the distinction between the actual definition of pedophilia[1] and Joe's version[2] is largely based in public ignorance of the term. It's not all that dissimilar to the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial "theory".

1.	regarding prepubescent children
2.	regarding anyone under the local legal age of consent

And the media doesn't help at all with this, either.  For example, I remember seeing an ep of "Law & Order: SVU" some time back that featured a middle-aged man married to a 17-year-old girl.  The captain of the SVU called this "legalized pedophilia".  Umm, no... the "child" is seventeen.  A typical seventeen-year-old girl is fully sexually developed.  (Anyone familiar with the Tanner scale?)  That's not pedophilia, but the media typically portrays it as though it is.

I regard this as rather seriously problematic, at least in our own society.  When you have an atmosphere in which everyone is overtly "agreed" that being sexually attracted to anyone under the age of majority constitutes "pedophilila", you have an environment that is ripe for giving men neurotic complexes over their having perfectly normal desires and feelings.  I don't have the smallest doubt but that there are probably, quite literally, millions of men in America who go thru their day-to-day lives quietly thinking to themselves that they must be sick, twisted, or depraved, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

[joebbowers]

That's an unfortunate episode, as you didn't actually break a law; the only thing you can do is not take dubious material through customs in future. (Was that Vietnam, by the way?) 

Nope, there are lots of other things I can do. Like encrypt my entire hard drive for example.

It was China.

She may know it was produced and published, but how does she know you're watching it?

I don't see how that's relevant.

It's relevant because you said merely watching it anonymously causes her harm.

This also ignores the fact that the availability of child porn serves as an outlet for sexual energy of pedophiles and that it's strict ban only leads to more incidences of real world sexual assaults.

That doesn't justify it, in my opinion.

Which proves that the real reason it's illegal has nothing to do with protecting children.

[Gnu Ordure]

And the media doesn't help at all with this, either.

And neither does Joe by defining himself as a paedophile when he's not.


And Joe, I would seriously reconsider the wisdom of you announcing on a public forum under your real name that you are a paedophile.

Why are you doing this?

Considering that you are a professional photographer, is this a wise career move?

Seriously. What the f**k are you doing?

[joebbowers]

Could you please describe for the court precisely how one downloads a file in the absence of a distributor of some kind?

Don't pretend to be dense. When does that ever win an argument? I never said there were no distributors, in fact I've specifically mentioned them several times, and I said I think they should face punishment. I'm referring to the top level distributors, who get the files directly from the abusers who produced them. I consider these people complicit in the abuse as they are in a position to stop it or report it.

I am not saying that there cannot be exceptions, but does not the illegality of possession generally logically follow from the illegality of the distribution?

A small amount of marijuana for personal use is legal (or at least decriminalized) in many countries, but the growers and the dealers still get busted. And again, more relevantly, leaked unauthorized sex tapes. Remember that female ESPN announcer who got photographed nude through her hotel door spyhole?[1] The guy who shot it got in trouble, but did any of the downloaders?

1.	With a spyhole reverser that you can buy online, in case you wondered.

[joebbowers]

And Joe, I would seriously reconsider the wisdom of you announcing on a public forum under your real name that you are a paedophile.
Why are you doing this?
Considering that you are a professional photographer, is this a wise career move?
Seriously. What the f**k are you doing?

I live in China.

[Gnu Ordure]

I live in China.

Well, it's your life.

But you complained about to the Chinese customs treating you as a paedophile over your pornography, and now you're happily announcing to the world (including the Chinese authorities, who are already aware of you) that in fact you are a paedophile.

That doesn't seem very clever to me...