| 
          | 
        
        
         | 
                     
	  |           
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 14:41 [#01079154]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
 **Note: although this is off topic and controversial i am  being serious with what i say and intend for open  discussion**
 
  This i will never get. Although i make jokes about it to be  funny and offensive with my friends at times, people  actually have a hobby of collecting such materials.
 
  Would this be considered a mental disorder? To be sexually  interested in children is quite odd. I mean what makes a 5  year old girl attractive? That makes no sense to me. Why not  wait another 13 years for the body to develop and the  legality of the situation. 
 
  Why exploit children to such horrible things?
  Is there anyone who took a psych class that could share  theories and thoughs. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           giginger
             from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2004-02-18 14:41 [#01079155]
         Points: 26335 Status: Regular | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I think it's a mental disorder too.
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           mappatazee
             from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-02-18 14:43 [#01079159]
         Points: 14302 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
Most likely childhood abuse/molestation.
  Listen to loveline (adam corolla, dr. drew).  All your  problems are related to what happened in your childhood.  
  But really, they've been doing that show for so long, it's  pretty amazing how well they can figure out what's wrong  with someone. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 14:46 [#01079165]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to mappatazee: #01079159
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
what defines childhood abuse or molestation? Any sexual  activity in childhood or would that be forced? 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeLtoiD
             from Ontario on 2004-02-18 14:47 [#01079167]
         Points: 2934 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
what is a disorder? 
  why do people take ideas, and just because it doesn't  conform to a general consensus, it becomes taboo... it  becomes disgusting. it becomes a "disorder"
 
  why do people think someone of the same sex is attractive?  why do people find fucking animations sexier than real  people? who knows... but its a fact that it happens. 
 
 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Sido Dyas
             from a computer on 2004-02-18 14:47 [#01079169]
         Points: 8876 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
Maybe its a perverted reaction to the peophiles insecurity  on older women/men. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 14:49 [#01079172]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to DeLtoiD: #01079167
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I find anything that isnt normal to me to be something that  is unnatural. I consider myself to be slightly normal.
 
  I was wondering if it was. I mean when is the last time you  went to the playground and got an erection? 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           earthleakage
             from tell the world you're winning on 2004-02-18 14:51 [#01079176]
         Points: 27859 Status: Regular | Followup to virginpusher: #01079172
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
15 years ago
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           giginger
             from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2004-02-18 14:52 [#01079178]
         Points: 26335 Status: Regular | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
BLEH!
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 14:52 [#01079179]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to earthleakage: #01079176
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
hahahha! Shush it you! :D
  :p
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeLtoiD
             from Ontario on 2004-02-18 14:53 [#01079181]
         Points: 2934 Status: Lurker | Followup to virginpusher: #01079172
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
i also question the validity of a "hot" 6 year old, and yes  i'm not saying its "normal" however, i'm not saying its a  disorder... 
 
  if you say that, than you could attribute anything that  isn't dictated to us through society as a "norm" or a  "disorder"
 
   
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 14:53 [#01079182]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
there's no such thing as a sexual attraction that isn't  natural... to call it a disorder is not really the right  word... it's simply another sexual orientation... i'm not  saying that people should be permitted to fuck 7 year  olds... but if a man wants to watch little children playing  on the playground with a telescope... i don't see how he is  harming anyone in any way... 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeLtoiD
             from Ontario on 2004-02-18 14:54 [#01079183]
         Points: 2934 Status: Lurker | Followup to DeLtoiD: #01079181
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
*as a disorder
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeLtoiD
             from Ontario on 2004-02-18 14:54 [#01079184]
         Points: 2934 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
i heard that the only unnatural sexual attraction is NOT  having one.  
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 14:54 [#01079185]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
i also question the validity of a "hot" 6 year old
  meaning what exactly? i dont follow. I think sexually  attractive when i say hot. As in fuckable. You can think a 6  year old child is cute or adorable while keeping sexual  feelings out of the situation 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeLtoiD
             from Ontario on 2004-02-18 14:56 [#01079189]
         Points: 2934 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
man, why are you picking at what i'm saying... alls i'm  saying is that it may be possible for someone to find a 6  year old attractive, however I do not.  
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeLtoiD
             from Ontario on 2004-02-18 14:58 [#01079192]
         Points: 2934 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
are we differentiating "attractive" from "fuckable" ?
  we're talking semantics. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 14:59 [#01079195]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to DeLtoiD: #01079189
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
no no, dont misunderstand. I typed the words "i dont follow"  meaning that i didnt think i clearly understood what you  typed.
 
  The worst things about Message Boards is the inability to  convey emotion. Darn!
 
  I never meant to come across as an asshole sorry! :)
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 15:02 [#01079199]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
it's terrible when you sense that there's some sort of  misunderstanding and then the other person is no longer  around to read/reply... 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 15:04 [#01079202]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to DeadEight: #01079199
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I know!
  *for future note. I am not judging anyone here or anything  but i for one dont understand it.*
 
  On the other hand i guess if said paedophile was looking at  girls 16-18 (still illegal) i wouldnt really care 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 15:06 [#01079206]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I don't know, perhaps it's the mental aspect of the  children, children are more trusting and less cynical than  adults. Perhaps that naiveity and innocence is what they  find attractive?
 
  I think the view of kiddie fiddlers as weirdos who are  unable to interact/mate with people their own age is a  dangerous and innaccurate one. A lot of paedophiles who get  busted are "successful" career men, many with wives and  children of their own.
 
  Part of the problem is that it doesn't appear to be a  mental disorder, or at least not a curable one...  Approaching it from the "lets make them find women their own  age attractive" approach is as likely to fail as trying to  make a gay man straight.
 
  I think part of the problem (although I'm certainly not  defending their actions) is that if you genuinely did find  children as attractive as you currently find hot women,  would you be able to resist?
  I think the only workable and humane "cure" for it would be  to incarcerate them for life somewhere isolated with no  children, but where they could work etc. and otherwise  function normally. Perhaps like the leper colonies of olden  times?
 
  Deltoid: An MP3 player can be attractive. Doesn't mean "it's  fuckable". 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 15:11 [#01079214]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
i agree that for some i'm sure the appeal can be  sociopsychological... where just the fact that it is taboo  in a particular manner might be enough for some to be drawn  to it sexually... 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Q4Z2X
             on 2004-02-18 15:12 [#01079217]
         Points: 5264 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
some people are just uncontrollably horny i guess, and are  seriously messed up in the head. it's no excuse at all. i  mean, they might have those feelings towards a child, but  there must be an additional major immorality in their head  if they think that acting on those feelings isn't wrong, or  that the basic rules of right and wrong don't apply to  them.
  however, right and wrong is not the same to everyone, and  maybe in their fucked-up mindset they don't see that what  they are doing as wrong. in that case they really should not  be let to roam free in society by any means, if they cannot  think about what they are doing, and apply that to  themselves, by asking the question, "how would i feel if i  had to undergo this?" 
  it says a bit about the society and mindset of people as a  whole. most don't really consider how their actions affect  other individuals and the world. many of these people are  just living for entirely selfish reasons, and want to obtain  pleasure by any means necessary, no matter how warped their  perception, or method of obtaining it is. 
  in general, we might not really have the power to actually  or entirely see how our actions hurt those around us,  besides faint expressions, what is said, and our  imagination's fake portrayal of how it might have felt, but  that is nothing compared to actual experience. if someone  had the same things they are doing happen to them as a child  continually, their perception or idea of love is warped.  that may contribute to their blocking out of their  conscience and thoughts, because as a child they had to do  the same, they had to either block out in their mind to what  had happened to them, and try to forget, or in a way, accept  it as the first and maybe only form of (sexual)  "affection" they ever experienced. they may  acknowledge that what happened to them was entirely wrong,  but they cant forget the fact that it was their probably  their first sexual experience. if the abuse was caused by a  parent or a loved one it might set into the child's mind  
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Q4Z2X
             on 2004-02-18 15:13 [#01079220]
         Points: 5264 Status: Lurker | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01079217
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
if the abuse was caused by a parent or a loved one it might  set into the child's mind that they could still love or be  loved by someone, but also be abused and violated by them.  even if a paedophile had past sexual abuse as a child, it  doesn't at all justify their actions, but it can make it a  little more understandable. i think a lot of this is a  cyclic, and being abused as a child could really ruin  someone's life and sexuality, but it can never justify any  actions that harm another person just for their own  gratification. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 15:13 [#01079221]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
to deadeight and Ceri: 
  I completely agree with your post ceri. I mean think about  it. If you are a paedophile you get treated like an outcast  and or a monster. The media portrays it as "preying on small  children".
 
  Does anyone stop to ask them why? Or talk to them about it.  Gosh in todays society you'd have balls to bring that one  up. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           epohs
             from )C: on 2004-02-18 15:14 [#01079222]
         Points: 17620 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
there's groups of people who get turned on by anything you  can possibly think of.  puke, piss, dead people, little  kids, big tits, small tits, other dudes, money, ect...
 
  everything.
  i think this is more of a question of what do you label a  "dissorder", and what just falls into the 'different strokes  for different folks'  category. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Q4Z2X
             on 2004-02-18 15:17 [#01079225]
         Points: 5264 Status: Lurker | Followup to epohs: #01079222
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
i'd say it's only a disorder if them acting on their  feelings hurts or is harmful to another person or animal. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 15:18 [#01079226]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
we should distinguish between child rapist and paedophile...  i don't think anyone would defend the actions of a child  rapist anymore than they would defend the actions of a  murderer... there is a clear breach of another person's  rights in that case... but someone who just has a collection  of pictures or something...someone who doesn't act on those  feelings beyond voyeuristic tendencies... i don't see why  they should be persecuted...  
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Q4Z2X
             on 2004-02-18 15:22 [#01079229]
         Points: 5264 Status: Lurker | Followup to DeadEight: #01079226
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
well, creating the pornography was harmful to a child  somewhere. why should that not be considered wrong because  multiple people are getting off because of it?
  in my mind people who collect those images aren't much less  evil than those who took the pictures. they are creating a  demand for it, and paying and rewarding people for doing it,  or are possibly helping the spread of it on the internet. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 15:27 [#01079241]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
by that logic you could send us all to jail for the horrible  abuses which we incur to children in third world countries  for many many products that we consume...  
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 15:27 [#01079242]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to virginpusher: #01079221 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
Unfortunately, it's Taboo to even discuss it, so there's  unlikely to be sensible political debate on the matter. :/
 
  Epohs: Yes, I was doing about child porn in law a couple of  weeks back, fortunately, the court recognises that you need  to exercise control and not treat the population as a whole  as deviants. For example, foot fetishes are relativley  common, but that doesn't mean we should make shoe catalogues  18-rated or ban foot painting in infant schools.
 
  My personal view, is that at least some of the "attraction"  to what can reasonably be consider deviant behaviour (scat,  rape fantasy, etc.) is the very fact it is forbidden. It's  the being naughty, going against society, etc. which  provides at least some of the thrill. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 15:29 [#01079247]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to DeadEight: #01079226 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
The courts in almost all countries, take the same view-  creating (be it drawing/rendering photo-realistic depictions  of children in sexual acts or taking pictures) is far more  serious an offence than consumption. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 15:34 [#01079258]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
This is a very tough topic to me. I know personally a number  of people that are going out with underage girls. I am 21  and a number of my friends are either that or 20. But if  they see a 16 year old that is illegal to an extent.
 
  Hard debate. I know with them that they arent seeking  underage sexual partners but i recently met a number of  girls that are 16, 17 that are quite awesome girls. These  gentlemen would be considered criminals for that. It's not  like that.
 
  hmm i  miss my silly pointless threads
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 15:38 [#01079273]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
as far as going out with someone a few years younger who  happens to be underage... well it really varies from case to  case... there's no line you can draw, where after a certain  age you can be certain that someone is sexually mature...  there are 16 year olds who are more well suited for going  out with 21 year olds than 21 year olds who go out with 26  year olds...  
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           mappatazee
             from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-02-18 15:46 [#01079293]
         Points: 14302 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
It still stands; if you are 21 going out with a 16 year old;  you suck.
 
  'a number of 16-17 year olds who are pretty awesome'?  Damn.   I'd say that is a 1 in 10,000 chance to meet just one.   Girls should be seperated from society from age 13-18.  They  are so fucking dumb and annoying. /rant 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 15:47 [#01079296]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to virginpusher: #01079258 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I know the age of consent differs from country to country,  but here we have three "bands".
 
  The one everyone knows about is 16+ for consensual, straight  sex. 
 
  However: 18+ for homosexual activity between men (amusingly,  thanks to Queen victoria, lesbianity isn't recognised under  UK law! A bit like female instigated rape isn't...) or if  you're in a position of trust with an individual of the  opposite sex (e.g. a teacher, scout leader, religious leader  etc.). 
 
  Also, under 13s are far more serious (in terms of  sentencing) an offence than under 16s, particularly if the  adult is over 21. There's talk of changing this as some  paedophiles cynically exploit this and make a point of  targetting girls just as they turn 13.
 
  There's also two more criteria, but I can't remember whether  these are law or if it was just proposed, so don't quote  me:
 
  21+ for consensual homosexuality between a man and another  man, one of whom is in a position of trust to the other, eg  a lecturer, etc.
 
  18+ for consensual anal intercourse, between a straight  couple.
 
  Fun Fact: The legal age of consent in each country  has no reflection on when the average citizen loses their  virginity. In Spain for example, the age of consent is  comparatively low (is it 12/14? I can't remember...), yet  the average age for loss of virginity is 18/19. Whereas, in  Britain, where the age of consent is higher, the average age  of virginity loss is considerably lower. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 15:51 [#01079299]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
thank you for that fun fact
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 15:58 [#01079309]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #01079296
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I do know that there are many countries that differ from the  US. I like getting different view points on such topics!  Thanks for taking the time to type that out! :) 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           giginger
             from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2004-02-18 16:00 [#01079311]
         Points: 26335 Status: Regular | Followup to Ceri JC: #01079296 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
You have to compare the two societies though and their  different values on such things. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Q4Z2X
             on 2004-02-18 16:00 [#01079312]
         Points: 5264 Status: Lurker | Followup to DeadEight: #01079241
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
well then, why don't we all go to jail for just knowing that  there are children starving in those countries? one is  probably dieing right now as you read this. at least by  buying a product made by them they might be getting a few  cents, maybe enough to barely live off of.
  i don't know how many products that i use daily are from  actual slave labour..  and i don't really see what  that has to do with a child pornography-a child most likely  being forcibly photographed nude or in sexual pose/situation  in order for the photographer to make money, or to have it  spread among many people who enjoy that type of thing. would  you think that a nude picture of you as a child floating  around the internet could cause no more harm to you?.. is it  just the initial flash of the shutter that causes the pain?  i know that it's horrible what happens to children in the  sweatshops and such, but it's beyond the control of our  country's laws. we cannot circumvent the ways of other  nations, other than by giving up our own commodities.
  I'd think that if one of us was in the position of a  third-world country's child you would do the same as those  children. You'd do the work and get paid your daily nickel,  because it is all you can have.
  the corporations are just taking advantage of the labour of  people who would be dying anyway. if you want a better life  for those dying children, the only thing you can do is give  your money to a charity and hope that it reaches  them, or fly your own ass to their country and give it to  them yourself. 
  unless you organise a total complete boycott of the products  that are manufactured by children in third-world countries,  it will do next to nothing. if you and 1000 friends around  the world stop supporting wal-mart it would probably just  make the prices end up becoming lower and lower in a ploy to  get more poor or cheap people to shop there. as a result the  wages paid to the children would just get paid less and  less. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 16:06 [#01079317]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to giginger: #01079311 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
What, like in some states in America age of consent is 21,  whilst in others you can get married at 12? :P 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           virginpusher
             from County Clare on 2004-02-18 16:13 [#01079322]
         Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #01079317
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
Age of consent can be 16 or 17> It depends on the state. In  my state anything under 16 is a Class C felony. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 16:17 [#01079328]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to virginpusher: #01079322 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I thought age of consent was 18 (at least I was pretty sure  it was 21 in others) in some states. I saw a documentary a  couple of years ago and the age you could get married (so,  presumably, have sex as well) was 12! They were showing some  class where these girls were learning "housewife skills"  like knitting, child care and cooking, etc. 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 16:20 [#01079332]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to virginpusher: #01079322 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
As an aside, I think age of consent will be standardised in  law all around the "civilised" world in the not too distant  future. I mean, can you imagine a married 16/17 year old  couple (yes, they do exist) go to another state or country  and find they're not allowed to sleep together there? 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           The_Funkmaster
             from St. John's (Canada) on 2004-02-18 16:30 [#01079345]
         Points: 16280 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
I'm offended! :O
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           DeadEight
             from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-02-18 16:35 [#01079358]
         Points: 5437 Status: Regular
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
-i'm not denying the futility of boycotting wal-mart... what  i'm saying is that it's being rather selective to punish  someone for having pictures which financially support the  propagation of child pornography, but not to punish someone  for having a financial hand in similar atrocities against  humanity that is attached to something more normal in  society... furthermore one is presupposing that one actually  paid for said pornography, when i'm sure that it's possible  to acquire such materials without paying (if you can find  beastiality porn on kazaa, i'm certain you can find  anything)... 
  -not that i want to get into it... but i think you're view  of how child labor and the industries to which it is  attached is rather skewed... these countries have had  poverty-creating conditions imposed on them by the  multinational corporations into their communities... you  can't consider yourself as somehow saving these children by  supporting the companies that abuse their labor... (not to  mention the fact  that i'm also referring to the indirect  crime that we are involved in which has led to death: for  example gas companies with their own private militaries to  defend their resources, etc.) 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Neto
             from Ecatepec (Mexico) on 2004-02-18 16:56 [#01079382]
         Points: 2462 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
r@ygold style anyone?
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2004-02-18 17:06 [#01079396]
         Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to DeadEight: #01079358 | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
There's evidence to suggest that the prevalence of easily  available child pornography on things like kazaa means that  people look out of "morbid curiosity", get hooked (or  discover they're a paedophile, depending on your point of  view) and then turn to "pay for" sites and even  abusing kids themselves. The number of paedophiles is rising  and sadly, it's not just a case of more of them being  caught.
 
  I think the issue of third world poverty is a seperate one  and bringing it up here merely clouds the issue. There is  exploitation (which happens in all society) and then there  is robbing a child of their innocence and mentally damaging  them for life. They're not the same things... 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           big
             from lsg on 2004-02-18 17:25 [#01079412]
         Points: 24091 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
i guess it's just what you call a fetish, so a strange  preference, but since it's bad for children one shouldnt  give in to it. (period) so that's period when they say  they're up for it (because they're developing still and cant  judge wether it'll be bad for them). also you shouldnt watch  it, just watch barely legals, or shaven teens or boobless  chicks and small dicked boys: use your imagination 
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
           wimp
             on 2004-02-18 18:15 [#01079469]
         Points: 1389 Status: Lurker
  | 
| 
 
     
 
   | 
Unlike the Dirty Sanchez, a certain "fetish" where hopefully  both participants are mutually consensual, pedophilia is  extremely dangerous and harmful to a child. Unlike adult  relationships, where both parties have an understanding of  their sexual identity and values, an adult-child  relationship consists of a party bereft of any sort of  sexual concept.
 
  A friend of mine becaume sexually active at a young age  (early teens), and the outcome of which greatly affected her  self-esteem and self-respect. She wanted her older friends  to like her, and because of the immature experience with  sexual intimacy, she associated being "liked" with being  "desired". Of course, this concept led to the sort of  "bedfellows" who only viewed her as a sexual object. Her  past experiences have left her emotionally scarred and  frail, with a distorted sense of self-respect and dignity. 
 
  From this, I can only imagine the consequences of pedophilia  worsen with the younger age of the child and severity of the  sexual abuse. 
 
  Child pornography is extremely harmful, period. Child  pornography which depicts children being sexually molested  or abused is obviously vile and illegal. Child pornography  which features children in a "provocative" context is  similarly harmful to a child in the sense that they being  transformed into sexual objects. This type of pornography  creates an atmosphere for the pedophile that these  feelings/acts/desires are socially acceptible, which they  most definitely are not.  
 
  
         
	  | 
        
        
         | 
           
	  | 
        
        
         
         
Messageboard index 
              
        
 
	 
	  |