Relative freakishness

[Timewarp]

Seriously...do we need to continue to go on in this thread. I vote for lock.

 

[LindyHopper]

if a pedophile did all that and never took the chance to ruin some poor child's life, then they cannot be arrested for simply thinking about it.

Actually, he can be. Having a single inappropriate picture of a child on your computer can be grounds for arrest, jail time, and placement on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a miscarriage of justice. People should be prosecuted for committing crimes in which they harm other people. But I think it's wrong to seek out and punish people for something going on solely inside their heads, that never manifests itself in the real world, and never threatens to harm an actual child.

 

[drew70]

Seriously...do we need to continue to go on in this thread. I vote for lock.

I can understand not wanting to participate in this discussion yourself, but why do you want to ruin it for those of us who do?

 

[starfires]

Actually, he can be. Having a single inappropriate picture of a child on your computer can be grounds for arrest, jail time, and placement on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life.

I think the idea here is the same as that behind the illegality of knowingly buying stolen property: you don't personally commit the crime, but by consuming the results you support somebody who does (the crime, in this case, being the shooting of the inappropriate picture of the child). But yeah, possession shouldn't get you on the sex offender registry.

 

[Black Hat]

I suppose I should clarify the subject a bit. As I said in the thread starter I do not endorse sex with children. I am firm believer in civil rights and the justice system. The pedophiles I was refereeing to are the non-offenders. In other words those who never commit crimes against children. I support their right to live as free citizens. I don't think that's all that bad of a thing to say.

As for those who commit crimes... do what you will, they're criminals. Child abuse is abhorrent, and I support any attempt to eradicate it. Rape is rape, murder is murder, what's wrong is wrong. In my research I found it funny that some pedophiles actually tried to defend themselves in court.

My whole point really was that a community like ours is pretty damn lucky. I cannot understand any reason that someone with a foot fetish or tickling fetish should ever be afraid of it or afraid to show it.

There are worse things...

 

[LindyHopper]

I think the idea here is the same as that behind the illegality of knowingly buying stolen property: you don't personally commit the crime, but by consuming the results you support somebody who does (the crime, in this case, being the shooting of the inappropriate picture of the child). But yeah, possession shouldn't get you on the sex offender registry.

Certainly - sexual photographs of nude children indicate that a child was exploited to create the picture, so possessing such images is a crime. Nevertheless, the possession of child pornography leading to arrest, jail time, and placement on a sex offender registry applies equally to the possesion of inappropriate drawings or photoshopped pictures depicting children. No actual children were exploited in the creation of these images, but society views them the same way. And that, in my opinion, is essentially punishing a non-offender.

 

[911]

I certainly feel sorry for anyone who is attracted to children by mensioning such people post of anger have been quick to come in. If these people act on their sexual urges they've now commited a sinful, unlawful, and disturbing act to which they should feel extremley ashamed of and should be put away for life. I don't pass judgment on such people but they need to be locked away so they don't commit such a crime again. If someone is attracted to kids but has commited no crime they should check themselves into a mental ward to protect children they may later harm.

 

[starfires]

Nevertheless, the possession of child pornography leading to arrest, jail time, and placement on a sex offender registry applies equally to the possesion of inappropriate drawings or photoshopped pictures depicting children. No actual children were exploited in the creation of these images, but society views them the same way.

I thought hand-drawn and computer generated pictures weren't included, at least in California penal code. I may be behind times, though...

 

[Black Hat]

By my understanding of pornography laws, pictures and stories involving *fictional* minors are excluded from pornography regulations...since no child was harmed in the making of the material. I think it's best to just stay away from it altogether.

I'm not sure that non-offenders should be locked away in mental wards, to protect children. I think a mandatory probation of sorts is in order as well as counseling. Not as a punishment but as a deterrent...like seat belts If they are serious about not becoming offenders then they shouldn't have a problem with mandatory counseling in order to seal the deal. This would also make it possible to catch these people quickly if its suspected that they've become unstable. But until they've done something illegal you can't really punish them.

 

[drew70]

If someone is attracted to kids but has commited no crime they should check themselves into a mental ward to protect children they may later harm.

Mental wards are for those with mental illness. That's like saying anybody who is attracted to women ought to check themselves into a mental ward to protect the women they might later rape.

Without singling anybody out, this is what I find so hypocritical about our community at times. We scorn "vanilla" people who look at us ticklephiles and think we're mentally deranged because our sexual interests don't line up with theirs. We constantly deride the "Bible-thumping moralists" who try to impose laws against certain sexual activities. How DARE they?? Yet what are we doing here? Talking about locking people away simply for having THOUGHTS of that which we find morally offensive.

And yes, I too find pedophilia morally offensive to the extreme, along with some other lifestyles as well. But laws of society should never govern thought, but rather be limited to actions only.

 

[Black Hat]

But laws of society should never govern thought, but rather be limited to actions only.

This is my belief as well. It seems unfortunate that this notion is under constant pressure from the modern day puritans of society. With as much as people have to rely on the first amendment it would seem that certain thoughts aren't allowed...this goes beyond the subject at hand mind you. (ie Dixie Chicks, Don Imus, and many others)

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Hmm...one of those rather rare moments when i agree with Drew.

Personally, i feel very sorry for pedophiles. Generally, they don't choose this sort of thing to be sexually attractive anymore then we choose tickling to be sexually attractive to us. In fact, statistically i'f i'm not mistaken, those who are molested as childs have a much higher chance of growing up to become pedophiles, which makes them victoms not once but twice. And on top of that, they, unlike us, can not seek out any help for their condition, because if a single word gets out that they are interested in what they are interested in, even if they don't actually act on those impulses, they risk serious threat to their lives.

Personally, i think this is tragic all ways round. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

 

[Mastertank1]

As long as they do not act on their pedophiliac desires,

they have done nothing wrong, and should not be molested.

All the evidence shows that once a pedophile molests one child, they will do it again, to the same child and/or others, unless physically prevented from doing so. There is NO treatment that has been shown to work. The only real preventatives are imprisonment for life with no parole, castration, and death.

Once a pedophile has acted out, and ONLY then, any measure that will stop him from doing further harm to childrren should be taken, and his 'rights' be damned.

 

[911]

Mental wards are for those with mental illness. That's like saying anybody who is attracted to women ought to check themselves into a mental ward to protect the women they might later rape.

Without singling anybody out, this is what I find so hypocritical about our community at times. We scorn "vanilla" people who look at us ticklephiles and think we're mentally deranged because our sexual interests don't line up with theirs. We constantly deride the "Bible-thumping moralists" who try to impose laws against certain sexual activities. How DARE they?? Yet what are we doing here? Talking about locking people away simply for having THOUGHTS of that which we find morally offensive.

And yes, I too find pedophilia morally offensive to the extreme, along with some other lifestyles as well. But laws of society should never govern thought, but rather be limited to actions only.

I'm not saying people should or shouldn't be put in mental wards for thinking about abusing children that's a good debate though. I'm saying if I had thoughts of abusing a child I would get help right away to avoid doing something horrible. You said that's like saying all men attracted to women are rapist but it's not, I can have sex with a woman and not go to jail if it's consensual but not kids, having sex with a child in any way is a crime.

 

[drew70]

I'm not saying people should or shouldn't be put in mental wards for thinking about abusing children that's a good debate though. I'm saying if I had thoughts of abusing a child I would get help right away to avoid doing something horrible. You said that's like saying all men attracted to women are rapist but it's not, I can have sex with a woman and not go to jail if it's consensual but not kids, having sex with a child in any way is a crime.

My apologies for misunderstanding your point. It sounded before like you were suggesting (as others have) that a sexual attraction to children is something that can't be controlled like we can control other sexual attractions.

But still, the question to answer is at what point should such tendancies be considered criminal behavior? Is it right that just having a photoshopped picture on one's computer is enough to land one on a sex offender registery? That seems way extreme to me.

 

[Redmage]

I have to agree with Drew here (and you all know I don't do that lightly). You can't punish people for what they think. I've read interviews with pedophiles who are perfectly aware that acting on their desires would be harmful to the children involved, and who are therefore voluntarily celibate. That suggests to me a degree of self-sacrifice that we don't usually credit such people with.

To put it in adult terms, we know that many adults have sexual fantasies involving rape. But we don't imprison them just for thinking about it.

 

[Black Hat]

I have to agree with Drew here (and you all know I don't do that lightly). You can't punish people for what they think. I've read interviews with pedophiles who are perfectly aware that acting on their desires would be harmful to the children involved, and who are therefore voluntarily celibate. That suggests to me a degree of self-sacrifice that we don't usually credit such people with.

To put it in adult terms, we know that many adults have sexual fantasies involving rape. But we don't imprison them just for thinking about it.

This is my understanding as well. Believe it or not there are pedophiles who seem to care a great deal about children. The trouble I have with this is: How can you trust them? I don't know that you can, and I don't think we'll ever know if they were sincere until they're dead.

 

[starfires]

This is my understanding as well. Believe it or not there are pedophiles who seem to care a great deal about children. The trouble I have with this is: How can you trust them? I don't know that you can, and I don't think we'll ever know if they were sincere until they're dead.

You have to trust somebody. You can't be sure that anybody is sincere. Would you trust an atheist? A sadist? A man with a death wish? I think a pedophile that admits to being a pedophile is a fairly low-risk indivisual, compared to some others out there. At least you know he won't turn out to be a politician!

 

[Black Hat]

I guess that makes sense. As they say "The first step to solving a problem is to admit that you have one." If he admits to being a pedophile (and why would you?) then I guess you could say they are taking steps in a positive direction...

I'm gonna say something radical now, be warned.

If pedophiles could safely live safely in the open, then society would be better off. Current laws should remain in effect. But if they weren't lurking in the shadows, then perhaps they could become more stable individuals (its true that living with guilt shame and fear while concealing a secret causes instability in just about anyone). At the same time it would become harder for them to get away with anything at all making enforcement easier. If you're a recovering drug user and your friends all know it, then they are going to be watching you very closely. Plus it wouldn't be so hard for police to compile a list suspects, making finding the offender happen a lot quicker.

Yet those living in the shadows, no one sees coming. Its like being shot at in the dark. Wouldn't you like to know as a matter of public safety?

 

[Oddjob0226]

That's something Big Jim and I have posted about in the past - they aren't all "drifters" out there trying to get away with something, they are folks who are Drs. dentists, salespeople, professors, accountants, soldiers (and surprisingly, more and more law enforcement agents.), etc. Many people who otherwise have something positive to contribute to the society as a whole, including the taxes they pay from their gainful employment. Think of how many uneducated, poverty-level, uncharitable drug addicts/dealers, car thieves, gang bangers and so on who never contributed anything intellectually, materially or financially to the larger society to speak of, that we are now housing, some who even spiraled further and further into crime until they themselves became killers; meanwhile, people who were actually doing something generally good do something tremendously horrible, they become 100% valueless to society despite their still having marketable skills and talents.

Besides, as a society we say that child molestation ruins childhoods, haunts the victims, etc. which is why it is so super-bad. Yet as a society we cut government, tax-paid social programs that might help medically and psychologically. So when a ruined, haunted crime-victim kid grows up after not getting the right kind of attention and himself begins to act out, once he hits the magic age of 18 we say he made ‘a choice’, bring up the ‘personal responsibility’ shield in front of our faces and can now safely, happily and legally jail him or her. Maybe he’ll get his original molester as a cell-mate, how wild would that be?! We encourage people and charitable groups to volunteer their own time to taking care of crime victims so the government doesn’t have to fund "feel good" programs - oddly, I pay taxes because I can’t do everything and my government is bigger than me - but then, to save even more taxpayer money, why not encourage victims to not come forward, and encourage criminals not to re-offend rather than jail them, so a lot more tax money is saved?

What we’re saying is, if you’re 5 and get analy raped by an uncle (a horrible, terrible crime), hopefully that family will be wealthy enough to take care of any medical and psyhc bills from that horrible, terrible crime. If the analy raped 5 year old comes from a poor family, well, we’ll spring for the $$ to kill the guy who did this for you, but for any lingering scars or ahaunted, ruined childhood from the horrible, terrible crime - you’d best just tough it out, toddler. Vetrens can moan about not getting a city funded parade but by all means don’t let wounded Jenny get a piece of that public dollar bill.

No one is saying this is a good thing. But saying "this is bad; kill them all" t’aint all that difficult to do and is a cheap way to appear moral while condemning something. 300 million folks in the U.S? There's plenty we could kill along with the pedophiles to free up some jail, highway and checkout-line space. Examining the problem, and coming up with a solution, multiple solutions, or even saying “I don’t know what to do” - or taking needed action the way MasterTank did - are all more intelligent, respectable and fruitful actions than just being angry in a lounge chair. We seem to be ruler of the world in how to feel about things, but we all paid for that public school education - put it to use and quit letting Japanese and Indian kinds beat us in brainpower.

(Or, you know, kill them all!)