This is a very emotional, frustrating, anger filled issue so I expect to hear some of that.

My question is:

How do we reconcile the issue of free speech, the issue of freedom to live, and the issue of freedom to pursue happiness when it comes to predators such as pedophiles?

The dividing line often is drawn at the point one person is invading or sacrificing anothers rights to these same freedoms.

But if there was a way I am sure we would try to intervene before any creep was able to realize his sick fantasy.
Is there a way to do that?

Can we allow pedophiles to circulate images of children, even if they have not hurt the child in the process?
Must parents be overly cautious about what kind of pictures they take: No pictures of Jack/Jane in the bath tub, lest somebody at the 1 hour photo place pass it on to their friends on e-bay?

How do we deal with privacy when it becomes an issue involving helpless and dependant beings?

I am a mom,
and there is no issue like this one to incite a desire for capital punishment,
and I do not support capitol punishment.
Damned if you wouldn't find me in court with a shot gun shooting down the bastard if he ever came within 6 inches of my daughter.

OK, so you ask 'what is the topic please?'
the topic is pedophilia,
the legal system and how can we maintain our rights and protect children at the same time?

I'll be pretty short with this.
This stuff available all over the internet is NOT the freedom of speach or something, but abuse in the worst shape.
The exchange of child pornography on the Internet should be under special international law that would sentence the people who do that with death penalty.

If someone becomes aroused looking at a child, there's something wrong in their head lets face it. As for our rights? I'm a big believer in the individual, and this individual thinks that people like that have no rights except to a few weeks holiday to the world of pain and suffering before they have a release from it :flaming: and that would only be when their bodies gave up from the pain :flaming: . Am I being a little extreme there?
There is no excuse for that sort of stuff. It isn't freedom of speech and pursuit of happiness. If you want an example why, my pursuit of happiness involves bloody vengence and mass murder for peace of mind. Murder is illegal however, so does that impede on my rights?
The only way to 100% sure your children are safe is to be with them every second of their life IMO, and if thats not possible, which it obviously isn't then kepping them informed and giving them sound advice and a personal alarm is the best we can do under the law here.
From here however rises the question, at what age does a child become an adult? All over the world there are different ages of consent. Would an international law such as Extremeist mentioned being implemented cause a lot of arguments about whose age of consent is correct?

Pedophiles are people too. Sick people with twisted interests, but people nonetheless. They should have a right the basic rights granted by their nation (for most of us, that's basically freedom, liberty, saying what you wanna say, etc.). Of course, these rights stop - and in this case, should stop like a screeching brake - when they're abusing a child.

A child is a minor. It should be nowhere near adult things. A minor has no say whether he or she wants people ogling him or her. Therefore, that minor cannot say that he/she wants to be ogled. If a person were not a minor, I would say it is perfectly legal (but immoral nonetheless) to have others using him or her as a sexual object - material or otherwise.

A child cannot decide (legally, that is) whether he or she wants to be treated as what pedophiles view him or her as. Pedophilia is immoral and is not consistent with most nations' laws.

There's one problem: how to control it. You can't invade people's privacy unless you have something beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have child pornography. That's wrong. Just like invading a child's privacy by taking naked pictures of him or her is wrong. There should be some way to regulate - but it's exceedingly hard to. That is the dilemma. We can infringe on people's rights (like I said, pedophiles are still people) to stop them infringing on other people's rights. We can do something morally right, but in turn would be hypocritical.

However, if a person is found with child pornography, he or she should be tried and receive a harsh sentence.

(And happy 4000th, Extremist)

[ December 27, 2002, 03:41: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

Because this has the potential to make me rant for pages (I would literally rip apart anyone who thought my kids were sex objects and acted on it in any way, shape or form), I will limit my post to one small area -- what about the child porn that isn't child porn?

I'm talking about computer generated images that, recently, the Supreme Court (I think) decided were not child porn because they were not real children. I'm of two minds on this topic: on the one hand, it's nobody's child that's being photographed and/or abused and it give these sickos something to look at aside from my kids (or your kids), which is, marginally, good. On the other hand, I get the gut feeling that any access to images of this kind only goads additional behavior patterns that are sick, twisted, and criminal. I know of no studies on this, so what I am about to say is pure opinion based on no facts whatsoever (kind of contrary to the rules here, mea culpa) -- however, I firmly believe that easy access to images of naked children, whether those children are "real" or figments of some "artist's" imagination encourages people who may be able to control their impulses or those who would otherwise be silent sickos to go looking for bigger and better things. Thus, if this fake porn encourages one animal to touch one child (with the physical and emotional scarring that is caused thereby) I'm so far against it that the First Amendment can take a bloody hike.

By the way, I'm a Libertarian, but I draw the line at children.

What's left to say? everyone else has voiced one asspect of my opinion or another. Any child pornography rather it be "real children" or "computer generated" should be banned, period! The previous post expresses my views on why this should perfectly. However, there are some things I do not agree with, I believe the law is called "Megan's Law" or something like that. It's something about when an ex-convict is released not only does the police department of whatever town get informed of their crime but the neighbors of the ex-convict. I don't have a problem with the police knowing, in fact it's their job to know and keep track of that sort of thing but the neighborhood? I don't think so. That encourages a mob mentality in people.

Possession of child pornography photos that you did not take is still illegal. I think computer generated child porn should be illegal as well and subject to the same penalties as possessing the real thing.

Having sexual fantasies involving children is wrong, no ands ifs or buts. That it was done in Photoshop instead of emotionally scarring young kids for life doesn't make a difference, it's still wrong. It adds fuel to the fire by allowing these sick fantasies to continue because they're "not real". What happens when a pedophile, used to "safe" computer generated images, decides to prey on a young family member or a neighbor's child? They are a menace to children and should not be allowed to be near them. If you just turn your back on them and allow them to "placate" themselves with computer generated images, you are not solving the problem, you are attempting to apply a band aid to a severed limb.

Should pedophiles have rights? Yes, I don't think anyone should be deprived of basic human rights. But they are dangerous and should not have freedom to do as they please. I know our jails are overcrowded already, but these people need to be kept seperate from the general populace under guard. From what I understand, pedophiles are unable to stop, even after they are caught repeatedly.

Is there a way to weed out child molesters and prevent them from preying on children? Not to my knowledge. If there was, I would support it, even if it meant a loss of privacy on the part of the accused. Whatever it takes to protect our kids.

Granted. Pedophilia is altogether sick and deserving of just about the cruelest form of punishment there is. Still I don't want to see a world where every day is like the one I laughed at with my friends about six months ago when I was in swimming hall.

I saw a group of young children (around 8-10 years old) jumping to the pool from the platform doing all sorts of spirals and loops in the air. Because this was to me extremely fascinating that children so young could manage what even I could not, I stayed watching them for awhile. I was about 50m away in another pool leaning on the side. And after about 3-5mins of watching I get this creepy feeling that everyone is watching at me. In fact, many of the people there were. As I wondered for a while what was going on, I suddely realized what it was about. Nobody told me about it so I would know for sure. But I gather it's a pretty good guess that those angry looking parents and seniles took me for some sick pedophile getting the kicks out of watching their children in swimsuits. Sighs... Makes me sick just thinking about it. Afterwards I thought this quite amusing.

Thing is, it's hard to say where the line goes. As with every other matter for that part. I've known folks who are so low on self-esteem and so afraid of being thought of as pedophiles that they dare not even play with children when it requires physical contact.

I *can* in fact see an exceptionally pretty looking 10 year-old girl as quite attractive, not just cute in the childish sort of way. Though not in the same sense as an adult either of course. I cannot see a let's say under 8 year-old in the same way. They are only cute in a strictly child-like fashion. Still, I require a mentally developed companion for my life and a child (as in, under 17 to say the least) is not that. In addition, I'm no rapist or manipulatist, and I clearly see that getting involved in underaged people in any that sort of way is wrong. But certainly there is no "switch" for when you physically feel another as attractive, and when you do not. I'm sure nobody can just *feel* things so that a 16-years old might be sexually attractive whilst a day younger would be nothing but a child invoking no reaction whatsoever (this is one reason why we have laws, to tell tyou what you cannot yourself be sure of and give out rules of things you might not consider yourself). So since this scale is relative to each, then it would seem quite obvious that some people, even though in every other way normal, have this scale of theirs below the average age. Meaning that they would find 10-years old very attractive still. Possibly even 6-8 -years old. Possibly, even much younger, though this thought gives out thoughts of vomiting for sure.

A sickening thought. But realistic. And that would lead to the conclusion that a pedophile is indeed only the type who actively makes his/her thoughts true. There are pedophiles who do get sick sexual pleasure by touching young children whilst for example playing with them. But these "pedophiles" might never go further than this, in effect making them harmless.

There are many sick things out there. And here. And we have over 6 billion potential wrongdoers. That gives us a whole lot of variation. Enough so to make it impossible to draw a logical line for everything that is criminal and everything that's not. Because of this, far too often the crime that was seen coming could not be prevented beforehand. That is why the punishment should be all the more brutal and lasting. And above all, effective, of course.

[ December 27, 2002, 08:53: Message edited by: Forashi ]

A brave and honest post, Forashi. It takes courage not to say the "politically correct" thing and I commend you.

This topic overall seems to be blurred between child pornography and paedophilia, so it's very hard to answer. I think we need a clear definition of both before we can proceed to state our opinions. Are we talking about banning Nabokov's Lolita, Anne Rice's Belinda, Victorian erotic stories about 10 year old girls spanking the butler, maybe even Romeo and Juliet on the grounds that they did have sex and they were about 14? Are we talking about fantasies written in a private diary? There are people who want to do so for all of the above, and I'd be more frightened of a government that punished the creation of such books than I would with the authors, and given that I was physically sick to my stomach trying to read Lolita, that's saying something.

No to censorship of works of the imagination. No to subpoenas of private journals and sketchbooks. No matter what is in them. There are some lines we cannot cross, to avoid becoming monsters ourselves and to avoid turning our government and police force into the Gestapo.

The other element is that it's very hard to identify pornography objectively. The best definition is "I know it when I see it", and that's a terrible basis for any law. Some dirty-minded people see parents' pictures of their kids in the bathtub as kinky, while others find artistic merit in any kind of violent filth.

The only fair and effective way to control this legislatively is to say "no second chances" for anyone who actually uses a child sexually, and to make child pornography punishable only when it is evidence that a crime has been committed (e.g photographs). Anyone who chooses to view or own that pornography becomes an accessory to the crime and punished accordingly. Then lock 'em up and throw away the key. The other prisoners will take care of them for us.

Full and fair disclosure: this is another of the issues that hits home for me so I tend not to be fully objective about it. Some of my Sunday-school students were used in the making of child pornography by a senior official in my former church. He was horribly mutilated in prison and will probably never use his hands again. Wish I could say I had an ounce of sympathy for what happened to him, but I don't. To view this kind of crime in the same category as erotic literature about children seems to me to minimise the horror of what he did.

On the other hand, I get the gut feeling that any access to images of this kind only goads additional behavior patterns that are sick, twisted, and criminal..... Thus, if this fake porn encourages one animal to touch one child (with the physical and emotional scarring that is caused thereby) I'm so far against it that the First Amendment can take a bloody hike.
Analogously, I take it that you would say that pornography such as Playboy and Hustler goad some men into raping women and therefore should be illegal? (Note, for anyone else, this is with regards to computer generated material.)

People here are thinking that every phedophile is a kiddyraper, if you want to lock up every person in the world who gets high on naked children, based on their twisted thoughts (there is a freedom of thinking in this "free" world right??) then you should arrest every straight and gay guy/girl because there potentail rapers as well..
Why not arrest every person on the globe with dangerous thoughts as well then, "commies", "muslims", etc

The cause of hate against phedophiles is fear, people are afraid that someone will do something icky with their children, thats what causing all these whole anti-pedo-actions.

IMO, pedo´s should be arrested, locked up, and maybe brainwashed when they commit crimes, like rapes, watching pornography, etc, etc. Not when there having twisted thoughts about children

But I got a clearer point of view since I don´t have children myself, and don´t believe in the forces of "good" and "evil"

@Laches - I have no idea what drives a rapist. From what I have read, however, it is not so much sex-driven but violence/dominance driven, so I do not know that what you hypothesize is accurate -- but pedophilia is sex driven, as twisted as that sex drive is, so I do not believe that your argument logically stands up. I also specifically stated in my post that I was giving a gut reaction based on no facts and that I draw the line at children. I think I was pretty self-explanatory in my position. Also, at least an adult has the chance (albeit slim in some cases) to defend himself or herself in rape situations. Children generally do not.

Simply put..ANYONE who is a pedophiliac should be locked away for good. They gave up their rights when they approach any child in a chatroom with lewd and obscene comments.

Two years ago I've volunteered some time ago in making some citizen's arrests of some internet predators. The feeling of approaching the awaiting pervert and informing them they are under arrest is a thrill. They stammer and whine about their rights but they know it's all futile. They've made their graves and will be buried in it.

Here is something for everything to think of: abusive Catholic priests. Everything that has happened so far (reshuffling of priests, coverups etc) has left me as anagnostic. I used to be relatively loyal to my faith but all of this is just plain evil. A man of the cloth, trusted and admired by everyone, abuses young children. They should be given a very harsh and swift punishment and thoroughly humiliated.

ANYONE who sees the need to abuse children in ANY form is a mental deviant and should be treated as one.

Pedophiliacs, child molestors and rapists should have NO RIGHTS at all.

Gabriel

It adds fuel to the fire by allowing these sick fantasies to continue because they're "not real". What happens when a pedophile, used to "safe" computer generated images, decides to prey on a young family member or a neighbor's child? This is a dangerous aspect, same could be with computer games like 3d shooters. When does a player go prey on the real with a gun and starting a massacre?

Real vs Fiction is a hard nut to crack. Child abuse is wicked by the state of mind in the western society (since I dont know the rest of the world, I dare not take a statement there) as it is seen in our laws. This is probably because that children symbolize innocence, the future etc. I think that all our opinions are created from our cultural roots including symbolism, religion and morale values.

Personally, I think child abuse is a bad thing, but not worse than so many others like killing. Ill intent, in the sense of harming another being is a bad thing in my mind. In what form isn't that important to me.

As to how we could protect our children, through education I'd say. The law usually only protects the victim, not the soon-to-be victim, and when we have a victim, it's kinda too late isn't it?

[ December 27, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: Lokken ]

It's a thin, thin line. Are all people who look at child pornography pedophilias? My knee-jerk reaction is to say yes, since I have children, and I'm hard-pressed to see the other side of the picture. I think the greatest argument against any form of child pornography is that if someone is looking at a naked picture of a child becuase they are sexually aroused by children, then what's to stop them from acting on those desires? Especially if the picture is taken in a way to suggest that a child would get pleasure from the act. It's the same basic argument for pornography in general, except that a child cannot and should not be expected to understand what a sexual act is or means. But does everyone who looks at naked pictures of children do it because they derive sexual pleasure from it? That truly depends on the picture---I think pictures of your kids in the tub are taking it too far on that front. But most pornographic pictures of children circulating around are specifically for a sexual purpose, and this is very very disturbing. Very.

I have nothing else to say about this topic than BLEH!
I think I am going to be sick.

yes eilonwy, it is a disgusting, frightful topic. I started it then basically left because of the challenges involved.
Once again I find many people have insightful things to say. And I would like to echo Sprites compliments to Forashi for his honesty and straightforwardness on a topic that is challenging.
I too have felt the same weirdness he described about observing the children at the pool, only for me it was taking pictures of my daughter. I have taken some of her in underwear and cowboy boots then felt awkward about having done so. There are the concerns some sicko will see a pic being developed and copy it, or some scared person will think you were a sicko and call the cops. I believe art has already been censored to a degree because of the political tone and sentiment surrounding the protection of our innocents.

Lokken touches upon this concept, daring to introduce an unpopular perspective. Many cultures of the past have say married 8 yr old girls to 23 yr old kings.

Sprite's comments about Lolita and other artistic expressions involving children bring up the question of art as well. A whole topic in itself really.

The most difficult topics always seem to embrace many other topics at the same time, no doubt this is why they are so difficult to grapple with.

It starts with the pictures and then we all know what happens next. My german friend told me her father was in prison over there for murder and there was a paedophile brought in. The other prisoners nailed him to a table by his testicles. The guards pretended not to see and the only reason they intervened was because the guy was bleeding to death. This shows you how they are looked down on even by other criminals.

I risked reading this topic and now feel I have to reply.

In my last school a teacher was fired because of what he did to the girls there. He used to try and tuck their shirts in and straighten their ties, he used to play with their hair and sit next to them in lessons. He was finally mad to leave after the parents came aware of this. None of the other pupils know what i know though. I used to help the teachers instead of doing PE and I found a document when I was in the staff room saying that they had found a picture in his desk. This must have been what made the Head finally fire him as he denied it before when it was just the parents and pupils :rolleyes: .

In my school before there was a man that lived near the school. One day I saw him in the tree in his garden looking into the classroom where the girls got changed, he nearly got away with it saying he was bird watching but the day after he dropped the camera and one of the brats in my class took it, when he got the pictures back the man was made to move away and was fined.

We had a teacher who used to pretend to drop pencils on the floor so he could look up our skirts. I wore trousers after our first class. :eek:

OK, so this begs another topic to be opened: what do we tell our children? Can we empower them? They are going to be confronted by authority figures who do not deserve the power they weild. Our innocents cannot be taught simply respect authority and adults, they must be taught to examine a situation and make their own opinions. They need to learn survival techniques, and in my opinion are not too young to do so.

I had to deal with creepos so early in my life, just on my quiet street, thru the telephone, and on the way to school as well. They are around, and I am teaching my daughter to trust her own judgement about people.

If you wanna join the cyberwar against pedo´s

Join Cyberarmy (http://www.cyberarmy.com)
Your network needs YOU!!

Scarampella you're right we do need to teach our children more and keep them informed. But the clash from this will be the traditional "respect your elders", the "your teachers are right" etc against the new way of thinking they will have. While personally I believe it's about time for a revoloution in they way we all think there will problems along the way obviously. In my experience the witch hunts and campaigning starts to falter when it begins to have detrimental effects on those doing so.

What do we actually them though? IMO the truth and how to deal with it. Ofcourse, how to deal with it may differ from others views on how to deal with it. But in the reacent years it has been highlighted as a serious problem that is extremely widespread all over the globe, with people in authority being these sicko's. The witch hunts that always start at the out rage always demand better safety measures being implemented by those authority and the blood of who did this, always jumping at the first person to be accused in connection with it. Perhaps they should look to starting these safety measures themselves as you have done with your daughter, and if they want blood they should make sure that the person isn't being used a scapegoat for such a serious thing before getting the gallows set up.

Let me go out on a limb here and predict something:

Pedophilia will become what homosexuality is today: accepted by a sizable percentage of the population and ignored by another hefty proportion with less than a majority remaining to voice objections.

They've already started down the same track with an article from the APA stating that pedophilia is actually natural and not harmful for the adult or the child. That article was shouted down, but there will be others. There is already NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which works to promote acceptable of consensual sex between adults and children.

They will continue in the same way: using "equal rights" as their rallying cry they will declare that all they want is the same rights for their sex acts that normal people already have. They will be unrelenting. If anyone dares to stand against them, they will be accused of being hateful and divisive. For every study put out showing the adverse affects on children, a pro-pedophilia group will put out another one "debunking" the other study. They will cite various moments of history in which pedophilia was accepted. They will discover previously unknown or unacknowledged rites bonding men and boys together and declare that those relationships were sexual in nature.

Then they will enter the schools and initiate programs introducing the students to adult-child relationships under the guise of helping them to avoid being judgemental when they discover one of their classmates is in an adult-child relationship. At first only the "progressive" schools will do these, but soon they will sneak into public schools -- first in California and then on the East Coast.

Before long you'll have a lot of people openly advocating the acceptance of pedophilia, some people trying not to deal with the issue at all, and far less than a majority outraged by the way things are going. It's only a matter of time. And some of you on these boards will see it happen in your lifetime.

I have seen child pornography on the web. It was mixed in with a normal porn site. I was browsing a certain, normal, adult LEGAL pornography site (no, i'm not ashamed to admit it), when I came across a small section, where there was a girl, no more than 11 years old, being... well... you know... It's all cleverly hidden away. Disgusting and in-human. Made me feel sick. I can't see how someone could possibly find anything erotic about these photographs.

What is the difference between a Pedophile and Child Molestor?

A pedophile is someone who is aroused by children.

A child molester is someone who molests children.

In my opinion, (and I do not care what people make of this, it is my opinion) pedophiles can no more control the way their minds work than homosexuals can.

Pedophiles are aroused by children, homosexuals are aroused by people of the same gender.

Before you go all homicidal on my butt, I am not grouping gays with pedophiles.

It's the way their minds are hardwired. You know how there are people out there who hate themselves because of certain things? I feel confident when I say that somewhere out there is a guy who hates himself because of his reactions to children.

Sure, some pedophiles are scum, they are the ones who act on their desires, they are the only ones the public hears about. So the public assumes that all of them are scum. I have no love lost for the ones who attack children, yes, they are sick individuals, but I do feel sorry for the ones who can't come forward into this world of ours and seek help, because they will be labelled a monster.

Continuing the above comparison, there is another fundimental difference between gays and pedophiles. The pedophiles desires are wrong. The ones who hate themselves know that. If the world could stop being so full of itself, they could seek help. (I don't know, maybe it's a psychological way of wanting to reclaim your youth. I'm a writer, not a shrink. )Then there would be no excuse for it, and no reason to have child pornography. That's when we could begin labelling those who don't seek help as scum fairly.

That's my view, and I know I have a right to it.

Soul makes some excellent points.

Just one note;
...but I do feel sorry for the ones who can't come forward into this world of ours and seek help, because they will be labelled a monsterDo you view this as the most important reason to phedofiles still roam the world?

Although alcoholics are not viewed as monsters, hardly all of them go to theraphy. Some remains addicted. Even in public. They have no dignity and integrity left. They just don't have the willpower to cease the day. Likewise even if phedofiles are not viewed as monsters, some wouldn't have enough grasp of reality to seek help. So it is false to say, that it is soceity's responsibility through its monster labelling that so many phedofiles still remains unhelped. They would be here no matter what.

Whatever triggers that sick behaviour remains shrouded though. This is the price we pay for beeing 6 billion people stuck in a high speed hyped up world. Some just click. The world is sadly big enough to hide them from the helping hands. Its too easy to step out or even be pushed out of society, and remain there.

That is what we have blame if we want to find the strongest roots to phedofiles' roaming. Not monsterlabels. It only plays a minor role. But nevertheless it plays a role as you say. You have a good point there :)

[ January 02, 2003, 16:53: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Dude, it is so totally freaky how some adults can be aroused by a boy ... just plain nasty. I'm 15 now and I can recall a few years ago when I was told of the existence of such people. It disgusted me and I never would have come even CLOSE to being aroused by the adult, I mean, as a boy you usually don't find older guys attractive -it just doesn't work that, it's not natural. I would never want to, say, kiss a guy. Unless the boy was gay, but even then not very likely. I therefore disapprove of "men-boy" relationships because there just plain isn't any room for it in a boys mind. I call those kinds "gay pedophiles". Because like, it's not enough that they're pedophiles but also homosexuals at the same time.
The other kind (that likes younger girls)... well, at least you got the right gender. It's fairly common to hear of some girl who has a crush on the guy from whatever higher grade. Such a kind of love could even exist between the two - but not between a boy a man .. oh no...
Don't get me wrong, I'm against child abuse. It's the same as rape - if the target doesn't want sex then you have no right to force it upon them. But pedophilia is a different matter. Being attracted is one thing. The girl might even have a crush on the guy, and what's the matter with that? (provided of course, that no rape occurs).

The only thing half of you are doing is just getting angry (Kill em! Kill em! Kill em all!!!), I mean come on, you're just reacting. Better discuss then yell it. You might even come to some sort of understanding.

And what's that whole business with fake images of underages?? You mean people create images?
..........
...so it's like seeing an image of a topless woman on some (legal) porn site but it's really ... fake.. ok.....whatever...

P.S. What does IMO stand for?

I'd write more but I don't feel like it and I think I might have lost my original idea of this post. I mean I might have gotten off track ...

Well, erm, see ya

I would like to say that the torturing of pedo's is extremely inhumane. I agree that its OK to do it to a saddist or to a pedo who tortured a child, but let's not be so general about it.

Nailing some guys testicles to a table is just plain cruel (although if he murdered, then maybe...). But such acts are in fact ILLEGAL!

Toruring others because of their state of min, ugh, that makes me sick...

Perhaps we should make some categories?

-Gay pedophile
-Sight pedo
-Touch pedo
-Sexual relationship pedo
-Murderer/Saddistic Pedo
....

[Instead of posting again, we prefer that you edit your last post if nobody has posted in between - BTA]

[ January 02, 2003, 20:53: Message edited by: Matthew G. ]

-Gay pedophile (all are evil)
-Sight pedo (not their fault, they didn't choose to be like that)
-Touch pedo (not good)
-Sexual relationship pedo (bad)
-Murderer/Saddistic Pedo (You can torture him) And the rest doesn´t choose to be like that?? They don´t just think "Well I´m bored, so lets rape something small"

There is no free will, these actions are all controlled by desires, in fact getting aroused by children is the same thing as being gay, or smoking, it´s unnatural. The only different are the consequences, most people in this world have only eye for the consequences and don´t look at what caused these actions.

(BTW, pedo´s can´t help it, gay pedo´s are evil?? Got a problem against homosexuals?? )

Aright, what I suggested was stupid, sorry.
I have nothing against homosexuals and I take back the gay pedos all being evil.
I just believe that the two should differentiated cause they're not the same (though very close).

BTW if I were to say that gays were evil 100 or 200 years ago, no one would say "do you have a problem with homosexuals?".

Though I doubt if pedophiles will one day become accepted. Homosexuals can create relationships between themselves but pedophiles- who are they supposed to go out with? Little girls usually aren't up for it. And even if they are it's illegal (wtf is up with that?!)

[ January 02, 2003, 21:07: Message edited by: Matthew G. ]

Hang on for a second, people.

Soul almost got my point.

A pedophile has not DONE anything wrong, yet. They are aroused by a child. What am I saying; HE is aroused by a child.

Yes, there are women pedophiles. But I consider them fairly tame and harmless.

Once you ACT on those thoughts, then you become a child molestor. A pedophile is not necessarily a child molestor; all child molestors are pedophiles (whether it's a dominance issue, or a sexual issue).

Kill the child molestors first. Then the pedophiles.

So you´re till in favor to kill people based on their minds, using the statement "yet".

Why not arrest every person with a gun, since they haven´t murdered a person, yet. Why not arrest every heterosexual, homosexual, etc, since they haven´t raped a person, yet.

If you would still enforce that statement, why not arrest everyone else, who might become a future-criminal, who might become dangerous. the problem with that is, no freedom of mind

You guys keep repeating yourselves. Which must mean that some of the arguments are true.

I think all you screamers and death-wishers should calm down a bit. If you don't have any sympathy for a person who's testicles were nailed to a table and nearly bled to death, then you become as bad as the creature.

Your religion does not allow murder, and it is immoral to torture.
In fact, by torturing the creature you condemn, you become a creature yourself. Having no regret nor sympathy for a human being and wishing death to them ("Kill the child molestors first. Then the pedophiles.") is as sick as mollesting. Especially towards the pedo. Why kill him if he has not yet commited a crime? Because he might intend to?

As for the pictures of children tempting pedos - well, you might as well shut down all the car companies for making commercials that tempt thieves - and playboy for tempting rapists.

Like Morgoth said, kill everyone else as well. That way, there will be no more crime.

[ January 03, 2003, 23:59: Message edited by: Matthew G. ]

I guess now it is the time for my bitter-cynical contribution. A word of warning though: I am deadly logical, I tend to call things by their names, I tend to vex conscience. If one does not want to risk his established and safe self-appeasement system, he should not read anything below.

Things lead to other things naturally. Everything has a cause and a result. Even most normal things may develop in perverted minds into abhorrent aberrations. This way we should be careful about both allowing and forbidding. Banning child, pre-teen and most teen pornography is necessary, but should we (rationally) sent to prison a 21 year old man for photos of 17 year old models like we would do with a 40 year old man? Banning pornography in general may resemble prohibition in action and reaction and needless to say affect science and art harmfully due to more active than rational activity of certain people. We all have free will. And we all have certain preferences. As perfect normality is a statistical figure only, we are all to a certain extent abnormal. I believe the extent is the clue thing. Ones fancy their own gender, others fancy much older/younger people, yet others fancy blondes only, short men only, tight red dresses or long white robes, whore-looking women or holy-virgin looking women, gentlemen or cads, some fancy celibate and chaste priests, monks and nuns. All that is pathological and all that is sick in various degree. We thus have to admit that imposing regulations and limitations in this area we limit some other persons' freedom on arbitrary basis, no matter how moral our reasons are. While it doesn't render our actions morally wrong, it helps to realise and remember the fact. As well as to realise and remember the fact that we are not free from our own cherished tiny perversities. What we must distinguish is the very moment when those more or less acceptable 'fancies' begin to interfere with other people's rights and the difference between sick liking and ill mind. An 80 year old millionaire marrying a 20 year Barbie doll gives the impression of pedophilia/erotomania on one part and Oedipus's Complex/prostitution on the other part. We cannot however and should not ban this. Speaking all this, being 19 myself I have romanced free or four year older girls and I see nothing wrong in that. As for opposite I even remember in the year I was 18 fancying one that was not exactly fifteen. While this could have gone illegal or maybe even did in some way depending on particular laws, what a sane person would call it pedophilia there being 4 year difference in age? I was however informally elected and declared something close to debauchee of the month. Now that seemed more than funny to me, my being the kind of RC that does not even allow himself premarital intercourses and several related things. I believe this is all about specific persons, not about generalised groups dived according to age or social customs. Anyway due to (estimated) physical, psychical, emotional and spiritual processes of maturation and pubescence, viewing a minor below the standard fifteen for our climate as a sexual object is nearly always harmful (apart from sexual-based but mostly platonic relations between kids and adolescents) and should be punished if goes beyond the platonic level whether in deeds or in words even (with the same exception as above). If 16-17 year old females, and very rarely some specific younger ones (taking a small percentage of high IQ ones who have higher mental age, emotionally or spiritually over-the-age mature ones, warm climate regions inhabitants etc), are concerned I believe calling it pedophilia in legal sense is in some cases a misunderstanding. In spite of that, I generally, with few exceptions based on the nature of a particular relationship, view as debauchery the growingly popular and now most common model in my country, which is a 16 high-school girl and a senior student or, increasingly, a graduated guy of over 25 in so called 'relationship' (an overused word in my country) involving sex. The girl feels flattered by the guy's attention due to his (as by her viewed of course) position of power and importance, her feeling of safety is flattered as well as her need for appreciation, economical reasons playing a significant part. He in turn is flattered by the fact that she might well have chosen a younger man in his stead. He views her as the source of youth he lacks and misses and treats her like a piece of furniture or a new pet iguana. When irritated, frustraded, having quarrelled with the boss, or if something went bad in his most precious schedule or his future prospects, he goes to her to release the tention. His manners as with reference to her are all the time at best commonish, but most often of the sort that makes my blood boil. I used to point out such behaviour, but after what I heard from 'oppressed' ones' each time (that's what this kind of mentality makes of them) I now limit myself only to extreme cases. This all quickly and unfailingly includes the "I pay so I demand" attitude. He thinks everything is all right because he gives her gifts expensive for a schoolgirl but modest for his means, pays all bills when they go out, buys her things like mobile phones (aka dog-lace) etc. or simply gives her money (close to 'sponsoring'). The emotions that this concept awakens in me render me hardly able to write. The fact that it is socially accepted makes we wonder how comes that I am sitting here writing and not leaning over the toilet returning my breakfast (forgive my being so expressive).

As all borders innately tend to extend, the above described ones lead to frightening future consequences. And it is apparently going to go much further than what was done with homosexualism when initially a bunch of people forced others to force yet others, thus making the ball roll, to officially view homosexualism as sort of alternative and not as perversity, implying even that it is natural. Some countries call homosexual relations marriages and even allow them to adopt children. Naturally standard heterosexual option is being criticised in media and in some psychological or sociological books. The fad for being 'homo' or at least 'pro-homo' is more and more dominant to the extent of people acting like homosexuals out of shear calculation and of enforced must-be homosexual characters in books and films. I pray to God this stops before it goes too far. What will be next?

About getting heated up about women being beaten by men.. Believe me when I say that I've had a great deal of time and experience to ponder over this matter. And my conclusion is quite simple: Let them be.

Men and women, no matter wether they be your own friends or not, are generally incredibly stupid. One that goes for the same type of person all the time and always gets hurt just has to bear the consequences. There are many, MANY men out there who might not throw a big party at the pub, but would certainly give a better and more stable life, and treat their companions as just that, a companion. I've never found it hard to tell different types of people from each other, generally speaking that is.

A classical scene: "oh, that guy there, he's so good looking and charismatic, and he's just so *manly* with women, not afraid to come forth and all". Why is that? He appears charismatic and natural because he is not nervous or afraid? Partially. He is not nervous or afraid because of what? Because, he lacks respect for women. A person like this is always about the most intriguing type a woman can imagine, for they always seem to take the situation in hand. They are not nervous nor afraid to tell things as they are. They are, *manly*. And I've no need to tell what happens when it comes to living as equals and respecting each others desires. This type of male can easily entertain women by allowing them the overhand of a situation in the beginning of a relationship, simply because their lack of respect gives them the benefit that they do not feel a woman as a threat. To give her special rights is no problem since they can be taken away at leisure. This makes them particularly hard to be told apart. But longer into the relationship, when true experiences and desires clash, it will not be a pretty sight to behold when the man removes and "educates" this obstacle that is the woman.

It is easy for me to see these facts of men, for I am one of them. Not the same type of person, but a man nevertheless. I can view it moderately objectively. Still, the same thing goes for women as well. Though women are rarely controllers in the same sense as men. They have more subtle means for it. I've had the pleasure of experiencing a few. The time when it struck me that this girl didn't even realise what she had done, I understood the root of it all. For in many, many cases, neither men or women even understand what they are like. They don't perceive the "evil", the critical flaw of nature, that is in them.

A powerful and charismatic person is extremely rarely a good person by heart, when it gets to a very personal level. For charisma and power to control the general atmophere of any situation are tools for control. Wether that control be directed for good or evil. And when the control is compromised, defensive actions will be taken. Be it a powerful priest, or a charismatic war-leader sought on conquering the world. A fair and uncorrupted judge, or a leader of a group of individuals that act for saving the nature.

This was much what in finland we call, stream of consciousness. It has a name with a similar meaning in English I believe. Anyway, this is a freely quoted thought that is closely involved in my own little childish philosophical thoughts of what the essence of this world of humans is like. In the end, it comes to the balance.

Still, in case this was too long and futile and confusing: there is nothing you can do about people who fall for the abusive bastardly sort all the time. It is there fault as much as the abusers. Only difference is how the situation is handled. Abuser has to be punished for his mistake, whereas the abused one unable to control their lives and learn from the mistakes, have to be sheltered from theirs. Surely I'm not blaming the abused over this. But when it becomes a custom to do the same error again and again, the one who never learns the pit-trap for what it is simply has to take responsibility.

[ January 09, 2003, 11:12: Message edited by: Forashi ]

Here goes...

I agree with Shralp. That is what I, too, see in the future... society accepting, no matter how grudgingly, that okay, so that fourteen-year old is shagging someone twenty years his/her senior... get over it.

My roommate is in a relationship with a man tenty-five years her senior. I am not judging her by it... I know she knows what she's doing.

I should say more, but I am definitely larte here...

Ara
(Running now...)

Let's not get off the topic, shall we?

chevalier des Trois-Tours, you couldn't have said it better. A lot of knowledge in what you said but still some reactions and emotions going on - i.e. feeling like vomitting. Feelings and emotions like these lead to actions, such as beating (of a pedophile). Let's try to control them.

Pedos also act on feelings. But tell me, how long would YOU be able to last? Say you are who you are, a heterosexual (or other, it doesn't matter) and you can't get a person of the opposite sex because it is considered immoral and wrong. You can't do anything about - unless you force it. After many years, you will want more and more, its only a matter of time before it breaks loose.

As for the idea of killing all pedos... irrational, emotional, and ABOVE ALL ineffective. Why? Because there is nothing you can do to prevent future generation. For all you know, your son could grow up to become a pedohile. What then?

Since there are so many of them out there in the world, it means that it is a characteristic. OK, not the best argument proving it a characteristic, see the first article on this page. As I was saying, this being a characteristic it becomes a part of our society and we must find a way to cope with it, to deal with it.

So what is the solution?

I don't know. But definetly not by sentencing every single person in a relationship or every single person in possesion of child pornography (as is recently being done in the US, you've heard it on the news).

@ MAtthew G. - Why do you believe that it "is only a matter of time" before someone gives in to his or her various desires? Notwithstanding the recent horror stories coming from the Catholic church, there is still a long history of priests and monks not giving in to their desires. Isn't one of the things that makes us human an ability to control desires with rational thought? I would certainly hope so.

@Matthew G.: That feeling like vomitting was actually real. It was so disgusting even though I've seen my part and I'm not a saint myself. Nothing to do with releasing the tention by beating the perverts though. I've been utterly hated for my self-control, really. No matter how they try they can't make me lose my temper and that's what they hate. Although I'm very short with people molesting others I've hardly if ever needed to use physical force against one.

I vote for compulsory treatment for ANY case of pedophilia. By pedophilia I understand the younger one being less than 15 and less than 18 if the older one seduced her/him. If the age difference is not significant it's not pedophilia of course. Infertilisation if intercourse confirmed (prevention), castration for rapists limited to disabling erection, done to all rapists since all are perverts, seduction counting as rape if the younger is a female below 15.

Just saw on the net that Pete Townshend's been arrested for having child pornography. He says that it's for research for a book he's writing as he thinks he was abused as a five-year-old.

Questions to the community at large: What possible research could he have been doing? If you're going to do this for a "legitimate" reason, wouldn't you let the cops know ahead of time to avoid this very situation?

Not really if just over the net. If 'enviromental' yes. He however should be able to prove that if this is a 'normal' research. If it's all about his possibly being abused years ago, what for nude children pics?

Well Matthew G. is right, should you kill the thief, then kill the person who makes the item stolen, or other potential thieves? Then if so, not only are you killing the person who has done a crime, you are killing someone who is doing their job, or is completely innocent.

where is Laches when you need him?

As I always say, judge deeds, not persons. Hate the sin, love the sinner. However, too much mercy for the wolf is crudelity towards the sheep. Sheer violence is not a method still.

First of all,Phedofiles or not creeps. Yhey ar sick, just like homosexuals and necrofiliacs and the more.

Then there is the question: What is child pornography ?
A picture of a naked 3 year old girl playing in a swiming pool in tha backyard? Most people say: No that is not.

A picture of a naked 3 year old girl geting ****ed by her daddy? Everybody agrees that that is a clear yes, I think..

A picture of a naked 3 year old girl lyimg on her bed with her legs spread?:Some say yes some say no

So that is the big "grey" area, and I must say that I have noting against it, although I think it is pretty sick. But what now if the girl is 14? I would think that could be nice, but according to the law it is still child pornography...

I guess that the rules about child pornography must be changed before you can say it is good or not...

dmc: true enough, there are many who withstand their desires. My point is that the desire is there and that it is strong (and getting stronger).

chevalier des Trois-Tours: I wasn't doubting your vomit feeling.
As for castration- cruel, but reasonable in such circumstances.

Another matter would be preventing future generations from becoming pedophiles. However severe the judge or the law may be, it will not keep the feeling, or "disease", from reappearing.
We need a good solution to the problem. Any suggestions?

p.s. Question: is there treatment for pedo's? I heard something about that.
p.s.s. a little off the topic: what does IMO stand for?

IMO--> In My Opinion

@Matthew G.: I know you weren't doubting. It's just that that was nothing to do with lynching people.

Treatment is for all perverts. Homosexuals divide into perverts and not-really perverts. Some of the latter are incurable. But it's still sickness, not another option as most of people in media say or the official line claims.

I'd still insist on some division between those who just enjoy young female partners and pedos. Say what you like, it's natural that the female is the younger.

30 year old man + 22 year old girl is more natural than 30/31 and possibly non-pervert.

I believe 30/18 is pervish, but still more natural than 30/31.

But 30/16 => the guy in most cases pervert (if not both) and 30/15 => real pervert.

Exception: At best and hardly ever, if emotional ties are very strong (some Mr&Miss Right), the female is mature over her age mentally & spiritually (prerequisite) and maybe biologically/physiologically (half-justifiable) and
[(were she not that)=>(he wouldn't 'pick' her)] =>slight pervert, not a 'real' one. Everyone has something favourite. Of course if those conditions are met, sex is not the basis of that relationship. It can and should wait. If the guy understands that without external help, he's probably just very much non-standard in preferences and not that much sick.

30/<15 => animal. 20 suffices for him to be so, exc. certain climates where they become mature sooner.

Sorry for brackets and logical operators, but I think it's better than possible misunderstanding and subsequent explanations.

Edit: homo pedophiles = animals.

child porn perverts = compulsory treatment needed

teen porn - depends on age, mostly perverts to be treated

[ January 17, 2003, 15:50: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]