Isn't that sorta stuff already illegal? O.o. I mean, I can't imagine something like that just flowing trough a hole in the law? It's such a big issue.

I've rephrased my last post to remove any chronological vagueness.

I was responding to Mojo, who suggested that watching child porn should perhaps not be a crime.

Any type of pornography should be illegal. Anyone who groans at this statement will be a proven no life.

Nate Dog Woof. The law that you spoke of that makes anyone who has ever been on the sex offendor list incapable of working with children is COMPLETELY the right thing to do. How can people not understand this? I'm not saying these people would EVER TOUCH A CHILD. I'm saying that I refuse to take that chance with my child. I will never claim to know the innocence or guilt of every person on this list or what their intentions are. All I know is that I WILL NOT TAKE THE CHANCE!

Mojoman- Your insistence on being a good little leftist who will accept all differing ideas as long as they are in the middle ground has clouded your sight. Do you honestly think that there is a percentage over 1 that feels sorry for the child after sitting there watching it get raped? THEY ENJOY IT. I want to point out one thing that you said that may actually beat Max for the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the internet. You said that kiddie porn being made legal would not significantly raise the amount of it being made. One-Yes it would. It would raise it a great a deal. There are pedos out there who may normally never indulge themselves because of fear of retribution. If we let them in the game then Yes, more will be made. 2-One is significant. One extra raped child is significant. We are not talking abstractions here. We are talking about innocent lives. Grow the fuuck up.

I haven't watched any porn compared to you, not "normal porn" or "child porn" and I don't want to do it either, cause I think it TOTALY COMPLETELY wrong! And Disgusting!

Just one question for you: If someone kidnapped any of your kids and did this to them how would YOU react?

I completely agree with you $andy, pornography shouldn't even exist!


~DS~

How would I react? Well, first I would find an abandoned house with nothing around it. I would kidnap him, drag him to said house and tie him up. From this point I would torture him slowly until he begs for death. This he will not receive. I will begin with castration and slowly moves to taking all of his extremities one piece at a time. In the end (after he has been disemboweled and there is nothing left to do) I will decapitate the piece of shit and piss down his throat. Does this answer your question?

yeah... that certainly answeres my question. Thanx...

Sounds like someone has a lot of anger build up inside him :P.

Hm, don't realy agree with that. I'm not a big fan of the sweaty geezy and 'down to the point' porn stuff either. But it's an industry, just like any other bussiness branch. And it's not hurting anyone. If you don't want to see it, just don't watch it.

I don't really understand why you asked me that question. I think maybe that you don't realize that I am the one who is VIOLENTLY arguing against ever letting anyone who is even suspected of finding kids attrative around them. Not sure how you could have missed that, though.

Consider this:

You find that paedophilia, the rape of a child, has mental deficiencies attached to the sexuality. If one was to have sex with an animal, it could never be consenusal. Ther4, rape.

The rape of an animal/The rape of a child. Ho hum.

Perhaps I'm just stating the more broad term of 'rape is bad, mmkay'.

OANST, I completely get where you are coming from. Same with pretty much everyone in this thread (Save Sandy, you porn hoarder bitch). That's a rather extreme view you got rite thur. B)

This thread makes me so happy.

...

I believe in second chances and all of that, but I can totally understand why people wouldn't want a convicted sex offender working with children! I mean, if I had a child, I (like OANST) certainly wouldn't want to take the chance of him or her being in contact with someone who is a possible child molester.

I mean... would any of you take that chance?

I know I wouldn't. I don't want children in the first place, but if I would then I would certainly not leave them under the care of a convicted sex offender.
I still keep with my point though, that you can't just generalize IMO. Just because you don't want to take the chance doesn't mean you immediatly need to portrait the man as some faul monster who should be tortured and stuff. Thats is also wrong IMO.

Nope, have to disagree on a factual basis here. For one, what you just said is the most used argument against bestiality while comparing bestiality with pedophilia is downright non-sense.
Animals might not be able to verbaly tell you, but that doesn't mean they don't concent. Surely a dog would attack you if you did something it doesn't want? And don't even get me started on what a horse could do to you, if you even survive.

Anyway, I don't want to go to much off topic, but you might find this and interesting read. Especialy the comparison to pedophilia, it's near the bottom.

What about age of consent laws?
Its 16 in Britain, right? so if you have porn on your computer, as long as they are 16 or up, is that okay? How kiddy is kiddy porn, anyhow? Anything under 18? If you ever thought about people under 18 you're a sick little deviant and you should be killed, right?
Wrong. I'm fairly certain everybody on the face of the earth would have to kill themselves.
And yeah, its sick and wrong, but what about porn where the person just looks and acts younger?
This isn't as black and white as you assume.

What you're talking about isn't kiddie porn. Kiddie porn is an eight year old getting fuucked in the ass by a forty year old. If a person is acting like they are younger but actually they aren't....well, they really aren't, are they? You know what we are talking about here. Don't be obtuse.

Ouch. I suppose I wasn't expecting little reaction, so it's my fault I made it at a time when I couldn't respond to it frequently. I stand by my opinion steadfast - nobody's convinced me there was any danger to the children. I remain of the opinion that people who are upset aren't applying logic, but I do understand that they are strongly urged to ignore logic and not view the case objectively, as oanst puts it.

I'm not at all saying child pornography is alright. Obviously looking at it is wrong in that it creates demand which is going to increase supply, increasing the amount of child molestation. I will make a counter-assertion and say that viewing pornographic material does decrease sexual urges - a lot of corner shop owners are against supplying top-shelf magazines, but do so because it's an alternative to perverts raping people at night.

I don't download any sadist pornography, but I will admit I was not aware of the nature of child pornography, and I'm not ashamed of that. However, if that's what all child pornography is like, then it doesn't logically follow that he is attracted to the sadist parts. He could be repulsed by those bits. The only thing that can be reasoned is that he is attracted to children. I'd love to refer to statistical data here or theoretical examples, but that won't work, so I'll be frank: I am strongly attracted to certain people in my life, but I have enough free will to resist taking advantage of them. Everyone is assuming that Paul Reeve does not, and yet he's never been accused of sexually abusing a child. In my mind, that demonstrates consideration restraint, even if he is frequently attracted to children, and it's not reasonable to assume that he is attracted to all children.

Onto Havoc's point about the nature of paedophilia. I'm not a psychiatrist, and I don't believe anyone here is, but as I biologist I know that any continuous characteristic of a population will be distributed in a bell-shaped curve; additionally, as people mature, their sexual tastes change (I'm not talking about orientation) - as they grow older, they are attracted to older-looking people. It follows that there will be a small proportion of any population will be attracted to unusually youthful features, and that means children. They don't have any choice about what they're attracted to. Knowing that, it is impossible for me to view them as subhuman.

I don't mean understanding as in justifying an action as ethically acceptable, I mean understanding as in knowing why something [bad] happens/is. In that instance I was refering to people who aren't psychiatrists or psychologists trying to pass judgement on a mental condition they don't understand fully.

That is exactly what I was saying. I know I can't expect everyone to apply Vulcan logic to everything, but to me being offended by something without closely justifying the reasons why is just so immature and unreasonable. With regards to what I said above, it is understandable that people are aroused by children, but obviously inexcusable that they would violate childrens' rights to security.

I'm exhausted. I'll have to respond to anything that comes later in the thread later. Thanks everyone for the stimulation and expansion of this topic. Everyone is contributing much more wisely and intelligently than I feared.

Well, answer my perfectly valid question about the age of consent.
16 year old on 16 year old: Felony in America, not a felony in Britain.
And who the hell are people to judge others who look at porn, alright?
I have "no life" just because I like to see some titties every once in a while?
Thinking about sex should be illegal. Anybody who disagrees is a no life.
See how stupid that is?

Stupid me doing a stupid double post.
I don't, on the one hand, believe that bell curve crap. People don't have to be attracted to kids.

To Max- You consistently miss the point. The point is not that people think he will touch their children. The point is that people are not willing to take that chance. If you had a child you would understand. My daughter is my life. MY FUUCKING LIFE. When she walks up to me sitting in my chair and puts her little arms out to be picked up I could just die. She loves to sit with her daddy. She calls every character from Winnie the Pooh, Pooh. When she craps her pants she looks at me and she says bum-bum. These things maysound stupid or meaningless to some of you but these are the things that get me up in the morning. I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TO PUT THAT IN DANGER. Logic tells you that if a person is attracted to kids there is a much higher chance of that person hurting a child than a person who is attracted to adults. And Max, you can perform the acts that you watch in porn with a willing partner. They can't. That makes a huge difference. The amount of frustration that builds in a pedo over the years must be enormous. I don't know how you can't understand this. YOU DO NOT TAKE CHANCES WITH CHILDREN! Fuuuuuuuuck!

Statick. 16 on 16 is not a felony in America by itself. Porn of that variety is. People that young are not in a position to make the kind of adult decisions that go into the "porn" world. I know most of you would disagree with that because you around that age but believe me, the vast majority of 16 year olds are not adult enough to make those decisions.

I'm not being an extreme leftist, I'm trying to analyze certain ideas instead of simply condeming them. If you've noticed some of my phrasing, there is to some extent devil's advocate at play here.If they're getting aroused by it, then yeah they enjoy it. My point was that it's not a stretch to think that despite their addiction to seeing it, they may not actually want to put a child through that kind of pain themselves. For some, it could be their way of getting it out of their system on a regular basis so that they don't have to commit the act themselves.I never stated that! Of course more people would make it! And I certainly don't think it should be legal. I was refering to the legalization of viewing it not making it. Considering that it's a powerful mental disorder, the people that would have the urge to jerk-off to it, probably already are. And no normal person would feel it as their chance to finally see some child porn, if it suddenly became legal to look at it, because most people couldn't even imagine watching it.I agree completely, I'm not a fool.If the person is signing up for a website, paying the supplier to see it, that should be against the law. I'm sure it does give that person satisfaction, but to arrest the individuals for looking at it feels like a bit much to me.

Finally, I'd just like to say, since I never really gave my opinion earlier, I think it's highly acceptable for those parents to be outraged. In a job where the person is in such close contact with children, it's common sense to keep someone with the urge to have sex with them, far away. I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm for such actions, because I'm not.

Damn... I'm done.

I know what you meant mojo. I just didn't word it properly. Making kiddie porn legal to watch WILL raise demand. And by the way, playing devils advocate with extreme rights or wrongs is leftism to the worst degree. A leftist is not necessarily a liberal. A leftist is a person who will argue for a right no matter how demented it is. Should it be legal to buy snuff films? If you were to download music that you took without the artists permission, is that illegal? Yes. It is. Do you think pedos have the permission of the child who was raped to watch their raping? I seriously doubt it. There are some things that don't deserve an advocate of any kind.

I don't believe I ever argued for anything that was demented. Sure, I brought up some different viewpoints for discussion, but I'm not some kind of radical. I just feel that the suppliers are the ones to be punished by the law. It's because of them that people have access to it in the first place.

I'm not saying that I want the law changed. I'm fine with the law's existence, and it ain't going anywhere (nor would I even want it to). That doesn't change the fact that I believe that an individual could visit one of these sites or not visit one of these sites, and it wouldn't affect anybody but the person who viewed it. Sure, the fact that these sites are there for all to see is affecting many people. This sort of thing digusts me as much as the next person, but people with this disorder are going to have thoughts like this no matter what the Government says.

Hopefully I've made myself clear this time, because I really don't want to talk about this subject any longer.

'Twas an interesting read, although the 'Animals Are Not Children' was really dragged off of one fact. Regardless, some people still do rape animals; Not all 'zoophiles' can be generalized and put into the 'not hurting animals' catergory. Sort of like some paedophiles: They may not want to hurt children, but it arouses them.

The simple fact that child pornography exists is enough to raise demand. I completely blame the internet for things such as these, simply because if there was a curious paedophile, he could just search 'Kiddie Porn' on Limewire and have instant access to a large bank of such pornography. Whereas if he didn't, he wouldn't be so aroused by it, since he never seen it.

It's a two sided sort of thing. Porn = urge, but also porn = repress urge, as if there wasn't as much pornography around, people would be so obsessed with sex that they may be willing to rape someone/thing.


So, children, we've all decided that any thread about sex can easily reach two pages. :laugh:

If people will cast their minds back, I downloaded child porn as part of an experiment to see how easy it is for someone to get the stuff. Now, I could easily be cautioned (although I'm probably not going to be) for downloading that stuff, and be put on the sex offenders registry...

So does that make me a paedophile? No, it really really doesn't. Far from it, in fact. Without being able to prove that I'm interested in children, no policeman, jury, or judge would be able to tell me that the fact that I've downloaded child porn means that I'm a paedophile. Okay there is the fact that the majority of the people who download it will be interested in it (sexually), but consider this; mortality rates as a result of paedophiles have remained a steady 6-7 a year, whereas straight adult rape is far far higher. So technically, you're more likely to rape someone after downloading normal porn, than you are after downloading child porn!

Another point that should be raised, is the fact that while the kiddy porn was in the shared folder of my Limewire P2P client, it got 1000s of hits, literally in the space of a few minutes. There's obviously a huge number of paedophiles out there, and many of them are probably living and working among us. Yet because nobody knows about them, nothing is done... yet child mortality rates are only 6-7 a year... surely if they're the dangerous psychopaths that they're made out to be then there'd be far more deaths, and way way more reported indecent stuff.

The western world is a changing place, that is now difficult to lead a normal life in, because everything is all wrapped up in cotton wool. It's all health and safety, child protection, sexual harassment, no win no fee compensation suits... people have got a heck of a lot more whiny, and government has bowed to a heck of a lot more environmentalists and extremists lately. It would certainly be weird to let paedophiles go free and do what they want, so that's not what I'm suggesting, but what I am saying is that maybe we should stop investigating everyone and being so paranoid. The way I look at it, the less we're aware of paedophiles, the better.

Isn't that just ignoring a problem, Dino? And besides, I don't think anyone who has children feels the same way. When you have children, that comes with a protective instinct. As a parent you can't just ignore something such as paedophilia. It get's to your heart because you have kids of your own. I wouldn't know how much it gets to your heart, since I don't have kids either, but I can imagine it.
Paedophiles are usualy the people you least expect it from. They don't stand out from others or anything. That's what makes the real extreme ones so dangrous. There isn't some standard that will say; Okay he's a dangrous pedo and he's not. So as soon as someone is linked to paedophilia people start making asumptions and then the rumors start. After the rumors have started and everything is blown out of proportions, you can't blame people to look at that person with a funny look. Even without the rumors the blowing out of proportion I can understand parents if they have second thoughts about letting their kids near someone who is linked to paedophilia, no matter in how small way.
For example, we all know you Dino. I wouldn't personaly believe that you downloaded that stuff for any other reason then research. But some random surfer who happends to stumble on the topic might go: Research? Ya right... puh, freak...

Ofcourse. It was never said that there is no such thing as animal rape. It was more of the point to show that rape is more of an exception then a standard.
But a zoophile, by definition, is someone who loves animals (Zoo - Animal. Phile - Love) and if someone then were to rape an animal, that wouldn't realy testify to love. So anyone raping an animal can't be called a zoophile in the first place. Their just animal abusers.
There just is one big diffrence between Zoophilia/bestiality and paedophilia. Bestiality has two sides. The loving side and the bad 'rape' side. Paedophilia only has one side.
You can't say; I did it because I loved the kid. That excuse MIGHT just go halfway if the 'victem' is above 15, as there are kids of that age that swear to love their much older lover. But in the end any sexual relation you have with a youngh child is taking advantage. Playing mindgames and the like. Even if the paedophile is absolutely certain he loves the child as any other would love an adult partner, then he should still have the ability to know that having sex with the child is taking it to far and that it is wrong. The fact that a lot of paedophiles don't understand or know that is IMO enough to qualify paedophilia as a mental disorder.

I know that none of you could possibly understand why I take this subject so personally but if you ever have children I guarantee that you will. Have you ever heard the expression "There but for the grace of God, go I"? Well, that's how I feel about my child. If someone had done something like this to a family member of yours would you not scream and shout and do everything you can to make sure that it doesn't happen again? Every single child who had this atrocity brought on them has family members. One day they were playing with a care bear, smiling, and watching cartoons. The next they are being tortured. These children CANNOT protect themselves. So we have to.

Dino-You cannot understand what you are talking about or you wouldn't be so offhand about it. For one, those numbers that you were talking probably didn't incorporate Indonesia, or Sudan, or China, did they? People sometimes get the impression that if it doesn't happen very much locally then it must be happening in small doses. Not true. I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier, as well. ONE RAPED CHILD IS SIGNIFICANT. Dino, I want you to do something. Prove that you don't find kids attrative. Fuucking prove it. The burden of proof is not on the rest of society. It's on you. If I know that someone has downloaded child porn I will not let that person around my child. They may be the nicest person in the worl who would never even consider hurting someone. But I don't know that. I have no way of knowing that. What I do know is that at some point you watched a child get raped on your own time. I will not give you the opportunity to reenact this on my child. There is no grey area when it comes to protecting children from this sort of thing. This is simple black and white. IF WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THIS THEN YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED AROUND CHILDREN. You people are seriously making me weary. If you would take chances with my child then you are my enemy. I will maim and kill to keep that child safe.

Mojo-A good leftist (such as yourself) does not take an extreme view. They hang around in the middle ground saying "well, everybody has a point and we should look at this from all sides". Fuuck that. FUUCK THAT! Either grow some balls or a clit. Right now you are devoid of genitalia. What I mean to say is that there are many , many times in life where things need to be looked at from both sides. There also many, many times in life where things need to be looked at from only one side. You must be able to tell what those times are or become a leftist (such as yourself).

No, we shouldn't do that, and that's not what I've been saying. We all know that kiddie porn is aweful, and I could go on and on about how much it and the people who watch it disgusts me, but going down that path without exploring other areas is a waste of time. I've stated my stance on the topic (disagreed with max's viewpoint), so please get off my back about it.

Some how I think you've got the idea that I'm defending pedophiles, which I can clearly say that I am not. This is a debate, and it's natural for areas of the topic to be analyzed from different perspectives. There hasn't been a statement that I've made that was unreasonable to bring up for discussion, so stop making it seem like I have.

What I never seemed to bring into consideration was female zoophiles. I knew they existed, I just never thought about it. How could they possibley rape an animal? "Get your penis hard or I'll shoot you"? Hah. New viewpoint. Yay!

I never said that child abusers were okay to begin with, they are most definatley mentally deficient. New statement: Pedophiles and animal rapists are somewhat mentally challenged.

I'm liking your extremist views, but God dangit, that's just silly. Firstly, how can one prove he/she/it is not a paedophile over the internet? A picture of them having sex with a fully grown fe/male? Feh I say.

Secondly, Goatboy must have his say: Ahurhurhur.

OANST, I am not liking your tone on this thread. Although your arguments are interesting and I know this is a touchy subject, could you lay off the "fuuck" a little bit?

Cripes, good call guv'ner! :D

Throw those sweaty fat pigs (and Havoc, if you wish) out on the streets! If they want a better life, they can get a real job.

OANST, I can understand how this makes you upset a bit more then the rest here, since you're one of the few on this board that actualy has children (or child, anyway). But don't you think your just a little overreacting to Dino? O.o