should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Nah, not really.  There are 11 year olds that have experimented sexually with other kids.  There are even those that have had sex by that age.  I went to school with a girl that got pregnant in the 5th grade.  The father wasn't a relative or a family member.  It was another kid from down the way...who was in the 7th or 8th grade as I recall.  It happens.

But that is not the same as pedophilia. Are you saying that if an 11 year old with tits has diddled with the 10 year old neighbor boy down the street then she is prime real estate for grown men like joe to put the moves on her?

[Timo]

Nah, maybe I misread your post.  All I'm saying is that there need not be any abuse for a child to become sexually active at an age that society at large would find to be too early, which was what I read your post as suggesting. 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Nah, maybe I misread your post.  All I'm saying is that there need not be any abuse for a child to become sexually active at an age that society at large would find to be too early, which was what I read your post as suggesting.

My bad, a relative or close family friend need not be an adult.

[Traveler]

...It happens.

Lots of stuff happens. That doesn't mean its healthy for the girl.

[Timo]

Never said it was.

[joebbowers]

Congratulations! A gross misrepresentation of my argument from top to bottom! Quite impressive in fact. Without further ado, let's look at the myriad of mistakes you've made here, shall we?

In fact Joe, what you're doing in this thread is what paedophiles typically do - you're rationalizing child sexual abuse.

No, I'm rationalizing the consensual sexual contact between two people capable of giving informed consent, regardless of age. I was clear that I don't know if an 11 year old is even capable of that. Perhaps you should read this again:

If you really want to force an answer out of me, I would say that if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal. If there is no coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, malice, or abuse, how can it be called rape?

Clearly in this case she is physically ready, the problem is determining her mental fitness. Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't. How could you determine which ones are? I don't know. Some specially designed psychological tests, I would imagine. Of course, that's awkward foreplay and it's not reasonable to set age of consent laws on a case-by-case basis.

That is not a call to legalize child sex. That is a call to recognize that not every single case of adult-minor sexual contact is abusive. And in case you have missed it after even reading a second time, I am acknowledging that most are.

Paedophiles try to justify their behaviour by claiming that:

1. the sexual activity had educational value for the child.

They're going to experiment with kids their own age, or they could learn from someone with experience. Someone who is knowledgeable enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. If I'm wrong explain why. Because it makes you uncomfortable is not a logical refutation of fact.

2. the child derived 'sexual pleasure' from the activity.

I never stated this, but I won't argue that consensual sex can certainly be pleasurable.

3. the child was abnormally mature and therefore capable of consent.

I think some are and some aren't. Unless you think that at 17 and 364 days no 'child' is capable of giving informed consent but that one day later they magically receive the gift of enlightened judgement.

4. the child initiated the activity.

I never said that. Likely sometimes that happens, but more often than not it's the adult's idea.

5. the activity caused no harm.

I am sure that in some cases it doesn't. I am also sure that in most cases it does.

6. their paedophile feelings are normal - other adults are simply being dishonest.

A simple statement of fact if you're using the broad definition of pedophile which includes teenagers. If you're using the clinical definition obviously that is a much smaller group, but I would still be uncomfortable calling their feelings abnormal, just as I would be uncomfortable calling a homosexual's feelings abnormal. Uncommon perhaps, but not abnormal.

And you've been arguing most of those points, haven't you?

Nope. I've pointed out that not every situation is the same, and that in some rare cases one or more of those points may be accurate. If you're trying to say that I believe ALL of those points to be true ALL of the time, then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

What else? You yourself have come to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security for posession of dubious material.

I came to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security because I have brown skin and hadn't shaved in a couple weeks. They had no idea I was a pedophile until they searched my laptop.

One of your best friends is a paedophile.

A pedophile who never touched a child. Most of the men here admitted to finding an 11 year old girl sexually attractive. What's your point?

You admit that the only thing that has stopped you from acting on your desires is the Law, which you would like to be changed.

The only thing? Seriously? Have you not been following along? Wow. Kudos. Awesome intentional misrepresentation. From way back on page #3, my first post in this thread...

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.

It's not only the law that stops me, it's that too.

And you defend the possession of child pornography.

I've given a compelling and logical argument for it's legalization, which I believe would lead to few children being sexually abused. You have not given a compelling and logical argument to refute it. You're welcome to give one.

You're a dangerous man, Joe.

Kind of a silly thing to say.

I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with you for a minute.

Aaand here we have the stupidest fucking thing anyone has said so far (except for the Christians who chimed in).

You think I would find your daughter attractive? You think she would find me attractive? You think I would find her mature enough to handle a sexual relationship? You think she would consent to one? Do you think that if she did not consent that I would rape her? You think I would risk losing my job, my family, and my life to have sex with her?

Unless ALL of those things were true, your little daughter is safe. I mean, as safe as a child can be with an idiot for a father.

Also, should I assume you wouldn't leave your wife alone with any of the other men here? After all, most of them are sexually attracted to adult women and you've made it clear that you believe sexual attraction leads to rape and since your wife is presumably over the age of consent there would be absolutely nothing to stop them!

[Mr. Blackwell]

AT joe

I didn't even read your last rebuttal, yet I have faith that it is weak.

[MadBunny]

I'm a bit late to this, and I will admit to skimming through some of the middle threads, please correct me if I cover ground already discussed.  Ahead of time: Informed consent is my personal deciding factor.

As I see it Pedophilia has three distinct divisions.

First; the obvious.  Abuse of a non-consenting minor by an adult.
Second: the gray area.
Third: impulses, either acted upon or not.  (for this category I'll consider them 'not acted upon' to keep it simple.)
------------------------ - -
I don't think anybody, even those with the urges consider the first category acceptable. [1] 

The third category, while useful for the study of human nature isn't really a problem unless it strays into the territory of actually acting on impulses.

This leaves us with the gray area.  The gray area, unsurprising is is quite large where the subject is concerned.  The simplest means of breaking it down is 'informed consent'.  If you look around the world you'll see that different cultures have different ages of informed consent.  Indeed it isn't even consistent within the US.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

You can see that it varies.  The lowest age of consent in the US is actually 14.  14! Most states are either 16, or 18 with caveats though.  Typically the caveat being that the partner is within a few years of age.

However, laws regarding M/F F/F and M/M sex vary wildly, both in the US and around the world.

-------------------------------- - -

This so far shouldn't be surprising to anybody, I'm just establishing my information thus far.

Mostly, I've stuck to legal definitions (see the link), but the question itself of whether or not it's pedophilia, if a person is below a certain age can be broader than most.  Where I break it down, is the term 'informed consent'.

is it possible for an 18 year old to be incapable of understanding what sex is?  Certainly.

This person:

Is clearly a child.  I can't see this being confusing for anybody.

This person however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Greenberg
She was 16 at the time of the photo, and according to Wikipedia is apparently 19 now.[2]

The obligatory reference:

51 year old lost actor marries 16 year old with tons of plastic surgery.
-------------------------- - -

Is it possible for a person, a *normal* person at the age of say, 15 to feel urges and be emotionally capable of deciding that they want to have sex with an older person, lets say 21?  I'd say it depends on the people involved. 
Generally speaking though, most 15 year olds despite thinking they have all the answers in the universe... are just kids.  What they think isn't relevant because they don't know enough to know they don't know enough.

So anyway, to answer the OP, even though we're quite a few pages in: no.  I don't think most pedophiles should be automatically killed.  Partly because I think the death penalty should be reserved for very exceptional cases, partly because I think a lot of these crimes can fall within what I consider a gray area and people are prone to letting their emotions cloud them on the issue.

1.	Most people who commit crimes, whether they try to justify it or not, unless they're flatly sociopath understand that what they're doing it 'wrong'.
2.	I really find looking at this person to be disturbing.  My apologies for posting it.

[MadBunny]

I've given a compelling and logical argument for it's legalization, which I believe would lead to few children being sexually abused. You have not given a compelling and logical argument to refute it. You're welcome to give one.

My apologies if I've missed where you covered this.

The problem with child pornography of an explicit nature is that it's exploitation of children who by definition cannot give informed consent.  Naturally there are exceptions to this, how would you see this being done in a way that does not exploit children?  Obviously you could simply get it from a country with a lower bar set on sex age I suppose.

You've made it clear from the posts I've see that you consider informed consent to be important, how do you reconcile this?

[joebbowers]

AT joe

I didn't even read your last rebuttal, yet I have faith that it is weak.

Ignorant and proud to be ignorant? Yes, that does sound like faith.

[joebbowers]

My apologies if I've missed where you covered this.

The problem with child pornography of an explicit nature is that it's exploitation of children who by definition cannot give informed consent.  Naturally there are exceptions to this, how would you see this being done in a way that does not exploit children?  Obviously you could simply get it from a country with a lower bar set on sex age I suppose.

You've made it clear from the posts I've see that you consider informed consent to be important, how do you reconcile this?

Yes I've covered this. I've been arguing for the legalization of the possession of child pornography, not the production or sale. Lock the actual abusers up, as well as those who encourage the abuse through purchasing it, but the anonymous unpaid downloaders are small fish and haven't hurt anyone, and more importantly their sexual energy might be satisfied by the porn, preventing them from seeking out real children to abuse.

[Chronos]

The obligatory reference:

51 year old lost actor marries 16 year old with tons of plastic surgery.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/51-year-actor-dough-hutchingson-marries-teenager-couple-14079128


There are bigger problems than pedophilia with that one. She says she is mature for her age, and I say she appears like a wanna-be porn star. Her persona is more than a simple case of precocious puberty -- I do not detect a real personality there but one that is manufactured. Not only can I not imagine a relationship with a 16yo, but I sure as hell would not grant permission for my 16yo to marry a 51yo. Even at 18 or 20, but by then it's none of my business.

Also, isn't it ironic that California chooses and/or is required to recognize a marriage from Nevada that California wouldn't otherwise grant? His marriage certificate is the only thing that prevents him from violating the law for age of consent. I wonder if this situation is referenced in the Prop 8 case ...

[joebbowers]

I don't think age of consent applies to cyborgs. I'm pretty sure she is more plastic than flesh.

[MadBunny]

My apologies if I've missed where you covered this.

The problem with child pornography of an explicit nature is that it's exploitation of children who by definition cannot give informed consent.  Naturally there are exceptions to this, how would you see this being done in a way that does not exploit children?  Obviously you could simply get it from a country with a lower bar set on sex age I suppose.

You've made it clear from the posts I've see that you consider informed consent to be important, how do you reconcile this?

Yes I've covered this. I've been arguing for the legalization of the possession of child pornography, not the production or sale. Lock the actual abusers up, as well as those who encourage the abuse through purchasing it, but the anonymous unpaid downloaders are small fish and haven't hurt anyone, and more importantly their sexual energy might be satisfied by the porn, preventing them from seeking out real children to abuse.

That seems like a bit of dissembling.

It's like saying: 'I've been arguing for the legalization of possession of cars, not their production and sale.  Lock up the actual producers of cars, as well as those who would sell them but not the people who already have them.'

Can you link me to the post, or the post # where you covered this, I'll go back and read it.

[MadBunny]

Oh, FYI, for those who missed it in my earlier post: Brooke Greenberg is the one on the LEFT.
It's my one of my goto examples for conversations about pedophilia.

There are doubtless people who're attracted to that, those people are unhealthy.  The example Joe has given with teenagers at the cusp of puberty, mostly developed, or in some cases indistinguishable from legal adults (Happens more often than you'd think) are rationally understandable even if you disagree with it.

There are bigger problems than pedophilia with that one. She says she is mature for her age, and I say she appears like a wanna-be porn star. Her persona is more than a simple case of precocious puberty -- I do not detect a real personality there but one that is manufactured. Not only can I not imagine a relationship with a 16yo, but I sure as hell would not grant permission for my 16yo to marry a 51yo. Even at 18 or 20, but by then it's none of my business.

I wonder if this situation is referenced in the Prop 8 case ...

Actually I wonder at that myself.  There was the story of a teacher who quit his job, left his wife and family for an 18 year old former student. 
[1]

Baffling, but perfectly legal.
What could an adult of that age POSSIBLY find interesting about an 18 year old?[2]

You raise one of my pet peeves about prop 8 actually. 
You'd think that marriage certificates from say... Hawaii would be recognized but they're not.  If I remember correctly this is one of the problems with DOMA, in that it revokes the states need to recognize other states certifications of legality.

1.	http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10549926-calif-teacher-resigns-after-leaving-family-for-student?lite
2.	other than the obvious sexual implications

[Chronos]

You raise one of my pet peeves about prop 8 actually. 
You'd think that marriage certificates from say... Hawaii would be recognized but they're not.  If I remember correctly this is one of the problems with DOMA, in that it revokes the states need to recognize other states certifications of legality.

Even so, how completely arbitrary to recognize the marriage of a 51yo and a 16yo in another state, yet not two adults of any sex in your own state (or any other state)? Completely arbitrary and fully unconstitutional.

On the grounds of immorality, I guess it's okay since the bible is replete with young girls being sold into marriage. Yet, we don't do that. Why not? Why not sell young girls into marriage? If the bible says it's okay, why don't we do it? Do we find it repugnant? I think so. Why is it okay to find certain things repugnant, yet not others?

I just love cherry pickers. They're always in the pits.

[magicmiles]

You do know that there are people whose genetic gender and physical gender are not the same, right? A woman can have XY chromosomes and a man can have XX chromosomes. This is because the  chromosomes guide but do not absolutely control the development of the fetus. Let's take the woman with the XY chromosomes - are you okay with her marrying a man who also has XY chromosomes? If not, why not? She is physiologically female. Yet genetically male. Shouldn't love and respect matter more than a physical body?

I don't know enough about that to really give an opinion, and I don't see that it's relevant to an issue about which I don't personally have any doubts as to what is wrong and what is right. I think sometimes people point out extreme examples and ask "what about this? What about that?" in order to rationalise something which they feel is wrong but hope despeately to legitimize.  Of course, that is my gut feeling, and it's actually primarily based on how I personally try to rationalise bad behaviour. I don't think I'm especially unique.

If we make love and respect subservient to form and function then we should also then limit marriage to those of viable child-bearing age 15-35 in most cases. And you are then advocating with Joe for recognition of teens as potential sexual partners.

I might have to have you clarify that, as I don't quite understand what you're asking me. Thanks.

So, for me, the problem is when we don't fight against our desires. I realise this is a Christian perspective and will appear ridiculous to you, but just so you know where I am coming from.

It is not a Christian perspective - it is a human one and many here have voiced the same perspective, even Joe to a degree. I say to a degree because he (and others including myself) have pointed out that the issue if far from simple or clear regarding consent and the ability to give consent.

It's a Christian perspective in that Christians need to fight against sexual desire in situations when society says we don't have to. In making that point I was branching out from the desire for an inappropriately young sexual partner to the desire fr any form of sexual relationship which is outside what God intended.

[magicmiles]

If I take the time to find reliable scholarly sources and the findings of which confirm what you would deem normal, what would this mean to you? This is a genuine question.

Not sure what it would mean to be honest, as I simply do not equate animals with humans at all. If you want to do the research I am happy to look at it and discuss it, if for no other reason than we might both learn something interesting.

What is it you exactly disagree with? That we are apes? Does the taxonomy itself bother you?

Genetically our chromosomes are nearly identical with the other great apes; all apes found in the Hominidae family have 24 chromosomes, except humans. We have 23. We have evidence that there was a chromosomal fusion between two chromosomes to create our chromosome #2, hence the seemingly absent ancestral ape chromosome. This is my layman understanding. I'm sure we have a few members here that are neck deep in genetic knowledge and could explain it in greater detail.

And our similarities aren't just genetic, our intertwined history can be seen behaviorally as well. Everything from facial expressions to lying and feelings of guilt and sorrow. We could get so deep with behavioral similarities that it would deserve its own thread.

I don't find some physical and behavioural similarities between humans and animals compelling. I believe in God, you see (you know). I believe He created all life. I would find it strange if the various life forms didn'thave many similar characteristics, just like it would be strange to see a great painter produce paintings which didn't contain some details and style unique to him or her.

You would agree that animals don't sin because animals were not affected by the Fall of Man in Genesis and did not inherit a sinful nature. So they are completely incapable of sinning; there is no desire to sin so every action they take part in can only be considered good, natural and normal.

It wasn't just the actions of manking that were affected by the fall of man - the bible teaches that all of creation stopped being perfect. That's a massive theological dscussion right there, which maybe we can delve into sometime.

But I do noe see the point you were making.

So with all that in mind, what makes homosexuality sinful for humans? By agreeing to those five premises, you and I have essentially devalued sin to nothing more than God's arbitrary decision to label it as wrong.

Nutshell right there Zanuku. It's what makes following God's rules so detestable to us, and why we are in the mess we're in. From day one we have told God to piss off because we don't want someone arbitrarily telling us how to live. I know atheism is based on a conviction that there is no evidence for God, but everything I see and hear tells me the dislike for God (even as a concept)overrules that 100 to 1. I've always thought so. Witness Hal's hotly debated hypothetical elsewhere on the forum.

We now need to tread lightly here, because we're taking the concept of  corrupt/evil sin from the Fall of Man (via the snake) and labeling sin as nothing more than actions which God arbitrarily doesn't want humans to do; “sin” is no longer an evil thing, it's just a thing God doesn't want one species to partake in. Take some time to really consider it all because this conclusion has serious implications.

Can you expand on this? What implications? I suspect i know where you're going with it, but I await your clarification.

Without objective wrong, appeal to emotion is all atheists are doing with their plethora of OT verses detailing moral outrages.

You're partly correct here and it's true, I do want you to feel disgusted when you read about Yahweh ripping open wombs and dashing apart infants. But I'm also asking you to rationally evaluate those verses and ask yourself if a logical and reasonable deity would do such things, or if it's more likely ancient men created a savage war god that supported their behavior. If the latter is the case, then you need to reconsider a lot of things.

Seems unlikely to me that an evil people wishing to create a savage war-God would create one quite like the God we see in the bible.

[Gnu Ordure]

Joe:

Congratulations! A gross misrepresentation of my argument from top to bottom! Quite impressive in fact. Without further ado, let's look at the myriad of mistakes you've made here, shall we?

I'm calling your argument as I see it. You're saying that in certain circumstances it would be OK for a 31 year-old man to have sex with an 11-year-old girl.

If she was physically ready, if she was emotionally mature enough, if she consented, if the man was kind and good, if the girl suffers no harm, and if it was legal.... then you'd be OK with it.

Putting it like that, I might be tempted to agree with you. But the crucial problem is that it isn't possible to guarantee that hypothetical situation. There is no agreed test of emotional maturity; no way to guarantee informed consent; and no guarantee that the girl will not be harmed.

So your dream scenario cannot occur in real life, Joe. Ii's a fantasy, and should remain so. Rational paedophiles understand this and refrain from acting on their desires.

That is a call to recognize that not every single case of adult-minor sexual contact is abusive.

Technically it is. But an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old is less abusive than a 31-year-old with an 11-year-old.

It's not only the law that stops me, it's that too.

I meant that if all those other conditons were met, you'd go for it, except for the Law stopping you. That's why you want the Age of Consent reduced to the onset of puberty; then the final barrier to realizing the fantasy would be removed.

Ain't gonna happen, Joe.
 

I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with you for a minute.

Aaand here we have the stupidest fucking thing anyone has said so far (except for the Christians who chimed in).

Really? It seems rather sensible of me, in the circumstances. (NOTE: I don't actually have a daughter, but I am assuming one for the purposes of this segment of the discussion).

And your questions support my defensive attitude. You say:

You think I would find your daughter attractive?

Let's assume she looks like the girl in your photo. So yes.

You think she would find me attractive?

That's possible, yes. She has crushes on pop-stars of your age. 

You think I would find her mature enough to handle a sexual relationship?

That's possible, given your opinion that if a girl is old enough to get pregnant then she's old enough to have sex.

You think she would consent to one?

She might, if you charmed her sufficiently.   

  Do you think that if she did not consent that I would rape her?

No, but not relevant to the situation.

You think I would risk losing my job, my family, and my life to have sex with her?

That's also possible. Your friend took the risk of looking at child porn and ruined his life. People do stupid things.

So actually Joe, you have said nothing reassuring there at all. You're saying that if the opportunity was there, you'd go for it. Like a rat up a drain-pipe.

And my decision to remove my hypothetical daughter from your presence still seems entirely reasonable.

Gnu.


=============================================

PS I mentioned before that these arguments of Joe's are typical paedophile rationalizations. I was just looking at the website of the paedophile organization  NAMBLA^Wiki, and found these similar examples in the FAQ page:

Q:  Why do you oppose age-of-consent laws?

A:  Opposing age-of-consent laws is not our only focus; it is one part of our broader criticism of North American social and legal practices.  We believe that these laws do great harm to people and relationships that do not deserve to feel the crushing weight of the heavy hand of the law.  Just as important, age-of-consent laws do not adequately protect young people.

Q:  What is this “ageism” you refer to?

A:  Ageism refers to age-based discrimination, and includes the tendency to discount and devalue the feelings and opinions of children and youth.

Q:  What do you propose in place of age-of-consent laws?

A:  Age-of-consent laws are those which say that if you are under a certain age, then what you say doesn’t matter.  We believe young people would be much better protected by laws -- and social attitudes -- that take their opinions, feelings and decisions into consideration.

Q:  Do you believe it’s possible for a boy and a man to have a close, even sexual relationship, without any harm?

A:  Yes it’s possible, and it happens every day. 

Q:  But aren’t these relationships always initiated by the adult?

A:  No.  We know from experience that some boys do initiate sexual contacts with adults.

Q:  So, does this mean you believe the relationship can benefit the boy?

A:  We know it can; some of us have seen examples in person. 

Q:  Ok, so if sex is so great, why do educators and doctors tell us it's harmful to kids?

A:  Well, people in very similar positions used to say with authority that masturbation would cause insanity and physical infirmity. 


This is delusional thinking.
 

[MadBunny]

That is a call to recognize that not every single case of adult-minor sexual contact is abusive.

Technically it is. But an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old is less abusive than a 31-year-old with an 11-year-old.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the 'gray area'. 

The problem here is that there is no way to create a sliding system that works with some people and not with others.  Since this doesn't exist we default to the least harmful option: legality.  We simply create an artificial threshold.

These thresholds exist in many places, soldiers for example are given guns, rockets and the ability to call down airstrikes with thousands of pounds of high explosive ordinance.  They are given the ability of mass murder, and the training to use it, yet in some cases they cannot even purchase an alcoholic beverage.

The solution is not to dissolve the idea of a threshold for people, but rather to understand that despite its inconvenience to a relative few, it does serve a purpose.

The same thing with sex.  Most people can accept this and deal with it, despite its inconvenience, or occasional restrictions.  I had to wait to get a drivers license, I had to wait to be able to buy beer.  It's just life. 

It takes all types, there are some people who like younger girls/boys, there are some people that prefer adults in big cat suits, heck there are probably people who prefer dolphins in nun-habits.



The criteria that we have to use isn't what people *want* or find *desirable*.  Heck, I've seen some of Joe's photography, it's obvious what he's talking about.  That can't be our criteria, it has to be either informed consent, which by definition people below a certain age cannot give or some sort of case by case criteria.[1]

Case by case criteria is frankly unrealistic.


Children can't give it, dolphins... who knows? 

1.	as in the example of the 18/17 year old.

[magicmiles]

Did anybody else think the dolphin was being swallowed by a killer whale?

[joebbowers]

That seems like a bit of dissembling.

It's like saying: 'I've been arguing for the legalization of possession of cars, not their production and sale.  Lock up the actual producers of cars, as well as those who would sell them but not the people who already have them.'

You could insert the word 'watermelon' in place of cars and create the same sentence. It doesn't make my argument any less valid. While grammatically similar, there is no logical correlation.

Can you link me to the post, or the post # where you covered this, I'll go back and read it.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg512087.html#msg512087

I also posted links to studies that support my position. Quesi posted links to studies that she claimed reached the opposite conclusion. I disagreed with their conclusions as I found their methods highly flawed.

[joebbowers]

Did anybody else think the dolphin was being swallowed by a killer whale?

Well, now I do. But he seems to be happy about it. Maybe that's his fetish.

[joebbowers]

Putting it like that, I might be tempted to agree with you. But the crucial problem is that it isn't possible to guarantee that hypothetical situation. There is no agreed test of emotional maturity; no way to guarantee informed consent; and no guarantee that the girl will not be harmed.

I already said that.

So your dream scenario cannot occur in real life, Joe. Ii's a fantasy, and should remain so. Rational paedophiles understand this and refrain from acting on their desires.

I made it pretty clear that it was a very rare case that I would consider it ok.

That's why you want the Age of Consent reduced to the onset of puberty; then the final barrier to realizing the fantasy would be removed.

Ain't gonna happen, Joe.

Ain't gonna happen, in America you mean. Not all of us live in America. (And even in America, there is a state where the age of consent is currently 14.) Don't assume your opinions are universally held.
 

Your friend took the risk of looking at child porn and ruined his life. People do stupid things.

Looking at child porn did not ruin his life. Unjust thought crime ruined his life.

And my decision to remove my hypothetical daughter from your presence still seems entirely reasonable.

Fair enough. I can't argue with a hypothetical since it's a moving goalpost.

Should I also assume that you would be removing your hypothetical wife from the presence of other men? You didn't answer that question. You are claiming that sexual attraction leads to rape, right? What if another man finds your wife attractive? For that matter, how do you prevent yourself from raping other women that you find attractive? After all, you don't seem to believe in self-control, or at least don't believe that pedophiles are capable of it.

[MadBunny]

<reply>
<links>

Thanks for the link.
I'm familiar with the rationalizations posted, and their various counter arguments.
My question/argument is not whether or not possession creates more abuse, or creates conditions that lead to abuse.  I have taken the liberty of assuming that you're a reasonably intelligent person, who from your posts and photography exist in the gray area of the topic.

It's about how a product which by definition is considered harmful to minors can be considered legitimate property.

To be clear I'm talking about sexually explicit content here.  Not a picture of children playing in swimsuits, or what is otherwise considered normal attire, despite what may or may not be provocative poses.

If it's illegal to make it.. 
Illegal to buy it..
Illegal to sell it..
Illegal to even be known to be looking at it...

Why the exception for possession? 

Did anybody else think the dolphin was being swallowed by a killer whale?

It's a dolphin in what looks like a Nun habit, wearing a StarTrek Communicator.
A character created for an RPG.

Last I remember he's relaxing in his quarters, a holodeck converted to an open environment and chilling with the chief of security.[1]
The game never really took off, but I like to imagine them sitting in dock, as if waiting for orders to depart.

1.	http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/haral.gif

[joebbowers]

If it's illegal to make it.. 
Illegal to buy it..
Illegal to sell it..
Illegal to even be known to be looking at it...

Why the exception for possession? 

That's a very easy question, which I've answered repeatedly.

Production - directly harmful
Purchase - indirectly harmful as it encourages production
Possession (if unpaid and anonymous) - harmless

Feel free to submit an argument that demonstrates that the possession of child pornography is harmful. Nobody has yet after 12 pages.

[Traveler]

...Feel free to submit an argument that demonstrates that the possession of child pornography is harmful. Nobody has yet after 12 pages.

If and when the child finds out about, the child is harmed. This is a simple thing, Joe. Think of the most humiliating thing that could possibly happen to you as a child. Now. Think about finding it in the possession of your uncle. Your aunt. Or plastered in a skanky newspaper after some guy is caught with it. Think about finding it online. Think about how you'd feel if your wife found it. Its called empathy, Joe. And if you think child porn victims never find out about it later, or never see the results later, then you're living in a bubble.

And, to be clear, as Madbunny said, we're talking about sexually explicit material, not just bathing suit shots.

[joebbowers]

If and when the child finds out about, the child is harmed. This is a simple thing, Joe. Think of the most humiliating thing that could possibly happen to you as a child. Now. Think about finding it in the possession of your uncle. Your aunt. Or plastered in a skanky newspaper after some guy is caught with it. Think about finding it online. Think about how you'd feel if your wife found it. Its called empathy, Joe. And if you think child porn victims never find out about it later, or never see the results later, then you're living in a bubble.

And, to be clear, as Madbunny said, we're talking about sexually explicit material, not just bathing suit shots.

Yes, that's a very nice theoretical argument. But realistically, how is the child ever going to find out? I mean, when someone is arrested with it, it's not like the newspapers print the porn the guy was arrested with along with the story. At most you find out someone was arrested for possessing child porn, they don't tell you the names of the children involved. How would they ever know? And even so, as you said, if and when the child finds about it, the child is harmed. If the child didn't know about it, they wouldn't be harmed by it. So if it were legalized, people wouldn't be getting arrested for it and paraded in front of the media, and the victims could never know who possessed it.

Do you watch porn? Of course you do. Now, do you think the stars have any idea that you're watching it at home in your room? Let's say that 10 years ago a poor young woman did a porn film to make rent, and now she's a married mother of two. That film is an embarassment for her, and if she found out that her uncle or her neighbor were watching it, she would be mortified. But how could she ever know? She knows it's out there but she doesn't know who has it, or indeed if anyone is even watching it anymore.

Sure, if a child found out specifically who had downloaded, watched, and masturbated to their video, they may certainly have their feelings hurt, but I really don't see how they would realistically find out. I also don't know if 8-20 years in prison along with destroying families and careers is a fair punishment for hurt feelings. Having your daddy put in jail until you've completely forgotten his face probably hurts one's feelings too.

[Traveler]

...Do you watch porn? Of course you do...

No. I do not watch porn. You are making assumptions based on your own life. I am a woman. Perhaps that makes a bit of difference. But I also know men who do not enjoy porn.