Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should Paedophilia be Seriously Defended?

235 replies to this topic
Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#61

Posted 30 July 2013 - 02:56 AM Edited by mincemate003, 30 July 2013 - 03:04 AM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 20:49)
LOL.
this is a terrible argument. why thank you sir)

the vast majority of victims of pedophilia feeling nothing but shame, regret, and confusion over their experience.
just because a handful of them might truly enjoy it and never regret it does not mean it's OK, or right, or moral, or acceptable.

you cannot know which child will turn out OK before you molest them rolleyes.gif


I see where you're coming from in that last sentence, but is this a blanket rule that applies to everyone that is considered a "child" by the law? I.E. is it impossible to determine if a 16 year old is going to be scarred for life?

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 20:49)

it's not fair to compare to pedophiles to people who want regular adult porn.

that being said... you're right about providing pedophiles with a release.
I have no problem with sex dolls that are modeled after children or even realistic, 3D, animated child porn.

it's perfectly acceptable as long as no actual human children are involved.


Why isn't it fair? One non-pedophile looks at pornography of adults, presumably because they want to have sex with them. A pedophile looks at pornography of kids, presumably because they want to have sex with them... where am I seeing this wrong?

I'm glad you have some heart for pedophiles not being figuratively "locked up" for life, although as you see from other responses in this topic, that's still a minority view, so naturally there's some merit to this debate. (Yes, I call this a debate. I think it's wrong to say "well you agree with me on something, so there's no need for us to even talk about this", that's kinda the point of a debate section isn't it?)

QUOTE (King Andreas @ Saturday, Jul 27 2013, 10:31)
Would you condone granting a prepubescent governing powers? Of course not, being that they're still in school. They don't have the foresight for such, nor do prepubescents have the wherewithal for adult interactions. You see, both these scenarios amount to the concept of premature. What part of the prefix "pre" is so complex to fathom?


People under the age of 18 (it's not just prepubescents that fall into this) can legally do lots of things that we could argue they aren't mature enough to do, such as drive, work a job, etc. and they can have sex with each other. At least in the United States... laws do vary from place to place, even in the modernized world. Even age of consent laws differ in western/modernized countries. As long as there's a difference in laws, I'd say there's plenty to talk about.

Also, prepubescent means "before puberty". Yes, there's plenty of things that prepubescents shouldn't do, but it's not like little kids are a bunch of loafs of bread that sit around doing nothing until their balls drop

QUOTE (Otter @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 13:42)
And the comparison to the perception of homosexuality is infuriatingly trite.


Feel free to elaborate.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#62

Posted 30 July 2013 - 03:10 AM

QUOTE (mincemate003 @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 20:56)
is it impossible to determine if a 16 year old is going to be scarred for life?

@ the age of 16 it would depend entirely on the individual situation and local laws.

pedophilia is really about prepubescent children being used for sex by adults, not kids in high school hooking up.

QUOTE
One non-pedophile looks at pornography of adults, presumably because they want to have sex with them. A pedophile looks at pornography of kids, presumably because they want to have sex with them... where am I seeing this wrong?

you missed the point entirely.

adult pornography is 100% consensual sex between ADULTS.
child pornography requires that some child somewhere is being abused and harmed.

even if you're just watching it (and not producing it) you're contributing to the problem; you are equally culpable in the abuse.
the only kind of "child porn" that can be legal for pedophiles to consume safely is 3D/animated/simulated child porn using cartoons or models; NOT real children.

QUOTE
I'm glad you have some heart for pedophiles not being figuratively "locked up" for life, although as you see from other responses in this topic, that's still a minority view

sorry.
no it's not.

"this topic" is a niche.
it's an insignificant thread on an insignificant forum in an insignificant corner of the internet.

the opinions of this topic ARE NOT representative of the general population.
I can almost guarantee that if you took a national poll, the vast majority of people would be in favor of imprisoning pedophiles for even longer than I would.

the only reason this topic has any traction is because it's on a video game forum where anyone (13 years or younger...) can contribute.
this topic (should pedophilia be defended) is NOT being seriously discussed in any court of law in any jurisdiction in the modern world.

Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#63

Posted 30 July 2013 - 04:47 AM Edited by mincemate003, 30 July 2013 - 05:40 AM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 23:10)
you missed the point entirely.

adult pornography is 100% consensual sex between ADULTS.
child pornography requires that some child somewhere is being abused and harmed.

even if you're just watching it (and not producing it) you're contributing to the problem; you are equally culpable in the abuse.
the only kind of "child porn" that can be legal for pedophiles to consume safely is 3D/animated/simulated child porn using cartoons or models; NOT real children.


The question was about the desire? Regardless of whether or not children are being abused. They'll watch it if it's simulated, they'll watch it if it's something solo (yes, minors are capable of recording themselves doings without outside influence, believe it or not), etc.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 23:10)

QUOTE
I'm glad you have some heart for pedophiles not being figuratively "locked up" for life, although as you see from other responses in this topic, that's still a minority view

sorry.
no it's not.

"this topic" is a niche.
it's an insignificant thread on an insignificant forum in an insignificant corner of the internet.

the opinions of this topic ARE NOT representative of the general population.
I can almost guarantee that if you took a national poll, the vast majority of people would be in favor of imprisoning pedophiles for even longer than I would.

the only reason this topic has any traction is because it's on a video game forum where anyone (13 years or younger...) can contribute.
this topic (should pedophilia be defended) is NOT being seriously discussed in any court of law in any jurisdiction in the modern world.


- I'm glad you have some heart for pedophiles and don't want them to figuratively be locked up for life
- But as you see in this thread, that's still a minority view (the view that pedophiles shouldn't figuratively be locked up for life, that's a minority view)
- The view that pedophiles shouldn't be locked up for life is a minority view

Does that clear it up?

Also, apart from me, pretty much everyone that has contributed to this topic is an adult, so there's no discrediting any one side of this argument based on the age of its perpetrators

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#64

Posted 30 July 2013 - 07:51 AM

QUOTE (mincemate003 @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 22:47)
The question was about the desire? Regardless of whether or not children are being abused. They'll watch it if it's simulated, they'll watch it if it's something solo (yes, minors are capable of recording themselves doings without outside influence, believe it or not), etc.

it doesn't really make a difference.

the bottom line is that pedophiles cannot be allowed access to real children.
if some boy records himself jerking off and uploads it to a place where adults find it and use it to jerk off, that's not technically pedophilia because an adult was not involved in the creation of the content itself.

pedophilia is about the physical interaction between child and adult.

QUOTE
The view that pedophiles shouldn't be locked up for life is a minority view

Does that clear it up?


well to be fair, I never said that pedophiles should be locked up for life.
that's not my position.

what I was saying is that - even if a majority of people in this thread agreed that pedophilia was ok - it's still not ok.
at one point in time a majority of people condoned human slavery. that didn't make it ok either.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#65

Posted 30 July 2013 - 09:19 AM

El_Diablo, the problem is we're treading on the whole concept of "universal morality" and such. Is something okay because a large part of society condones it, or are there some things that are simply universally wrong no matter what? This can be debated with far more things than just pedophilia. Some of it even pretty similar, at least in the respect that it deals with children... For example, half of the world sees physical discipline ( i.e. hitting a child ) as completely unacceptable, while the other half still practices it and sees no problem with it. So you say that it doesn't matter if a large segment of society thinks something is right if it's truly wrong ( going by whatever morality codebook you're following ) well how would you try to convince whole nation's of people that their opinion on it is wrong? Without discourse into topics, nobody ever considers that what they're doing may be wrong, or what they're doing may be right. The idea that slavery was wrong was probably just as radical to most of society as the idea that pedophilia is somehow right.

Here's another little hot-button issue... Male circumcision. Wouldn't find many people in the U.S. to say it's wrong, right? Most medical studies agree that it is completely unnecessary, and by-and-large the only reason it's still performed is due to tradition, religion and the desire on behalf of the parents for their son to "fit in". So how about we compare this to female genital mutilation in other parts of the globe? What's the difference between our ridiculous traditions and our empty justifications to mutilate children and theirs? Yet, millions of parents will still have their child circumcised in U.S. hospital rooms next year. Just out of curiosity, do you feel that it is right or wrong, and is that due to society's disposition on it?

See what you're debating here gets too broad too quickly and transforms this into a debate about ethics and morality, which gets pretty vauge and off the topic we're actually discussing here... See I do agree with you, that it can never be okay because consent is too able to be manufactured, but I disagree that what an overhwelming part of society thinks really has anything to do with it.

Melchior,

I think the complexity of sex is what is the crux of the issue here. Pretty much most children are going to enjoy the physical activity itself. Ever babysat? Kids play with themselves a lot. Now transcending that to this physical encounter being between an adult and a child, it's probably not going to be liked any less, but this doesn't necessarily count as consent in my view.

The real issue here is just that sex is not just a simple biological function, at least not in the society that we live in, the society that these kids will have to grow up in and be a part of. How are we supposed to explain the very complex and subtle nuances and intricacies of sex in our society to a toddler? Sure they can understand the physical side of it--they'll likely even enjoy it. However, how do you tell a toddler that being sexually promiscuous is seen as a negative thing in our society? What about when adolescents deal with the dreaded "homosexuality" discovery? I really don't think it will help them along if part of what they have to process through this is "bath time with daddy." Too many young adolescent males have to deal with just having seen their father's penis and what comes with that; how do you think they will deal with it if they've actually had contact with it.

It's just too much of a complicated issue to involve children into, and the ramifications of it stretch so far beyond just those initial stages of childhood that even if you have some kind of super-genius kid that understands completely every social nuance involving sex, the biological factors, everything... You can't erase regret later on. As children we make mistakes, many of them wind up being carried with us through our entire lives, and basically speaking our jobs as adults are to ensure the mistakes they do make aren't terribly life changing.

I mean, I know my comparisons often fall short--but think of why we discourage kids from getting tattoos. Because we know they'll likely regret what they've put on their body permanently. Now imagine that same scenario, but with a kid telling you they want to have sex with you. Sure, they might actually want to, but there's a good chance that later on down the line they will seriously regret that. As adults, it's our job to protect children from making mistakes like that.

Think about all the implications that really open up once you start involving children and sex... Communicable diseases for example? It's not even that easy to tell an adult, "Well, you had a choice and you took the risk of having sex and now you have AIDs." Try telling it to a kid. Sometimes it's really not about educating kids to make their own choices and risks, but protecting them from taking those risks until they have no one else to hold responsible for it but themselves. I mean, kids are inherently irresponsible; if someone has AIDs or some other disease, transmits it to a kid, I really doubt no matter how much you believe that kid was mentally and physically prepared for sex that you will not see the person who transmitted such a disease to a child as a walking scumbag. Now if adults can't even manage to not do each other wrong in this regard, why do you think children wouldn't get caught in it too?

Also I think animated/simulated child porn is a slippery slope. Sure it doesn't involve a real child, but how does one know that some child somewhere wasn't exploited and used as a model for such animations?

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#66

Posted 30 July 2013 - 09:29 AM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Tuesday, Jul 30 2013, 09:19)
Also I think animated/simulated child porn is a slippery slope. Sure it doesn't involve a real child, but how does one know that some child somewhere wasn't exploited and used as a model for such animations?

I don't see how that's possible, human anatomy is common knowledge, artificial pornographic images or even child-like robotic beings could be constructed based on existing knowledge of both the human body and all the sexual activities humans engage in.
And even if what you say happened, it would still not change the fact that it would give thousands and thousands of people a legal recourse to indulge their sexual orientation, it would help end oppression and give them peace.
What you said is a worst-case scenario, but I would still support it as a necessary evil in order to liberate those who have been persecuted.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#67

Posted 30 July 2013 - 09:45 PM Edited by El_Diablo, 30 July 2013 - 09:59 PM.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Tuesday, Jul 30 2013, 03:19)
See I do agree with you, that it can never be okay because consent is too able to be manufactured, but I disagree that what an overhwelming part of society thinks really has anything to do with it.

you really didn't need to type those previous paragraphs.
this was all you needed to say.

but I have to object.
my responses were never based on what society thinks. the fact that society and I agree (at this point in history) is great, but that's not why I think pedophilia is indefensible.

I think pedophilia is indefensible because I think pedophilia is indefensible. lol.gif
it's that simple. the reasons I provide have more to do with the protection of the children and their innocence (and their childhood) than with the actual denouncement of pedophiles themselves.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Tuesday, Jul 30 2013, 03:19)
Also I think animated/simulated child porn is a slippery slope.  Sure it doesn't involve a real child, but how does one know that some child somewhere wasn't exploited and used as a model for such animations?

oh I forgot to respond to this; although Typhus already gave the correct answer.

I fail to see where the slippery slope comes from.
if you've ever browsed a porn tube in the last decade (and what red-blooded male hasn't) then you already know that the Japanese are really into 3D porn where physical porn cannot venture. they use it for tentacle fetish, monster fetish, gore fetish, etc etc.

it's not hard to create an accurate 3D model of a prepubescent child.
you don't need an actual naked child to stand around and model for you, the same way that current 3D porn movies don't need women (or tentacle monsters which don't even exist) to stand around and model for them either.

an artist draws something on paper from nothing because he knows what the world looks like already. it's in his head.
so I really see no problem with allowing pedophiles to explore their fetish using the medium of animated pornography.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#68

Posted 30 July 2013 - 10:00 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 30 2013, 13:45)
so I really see no problem with allowing pedophiles to explore their fetish using the medium of animated pornography.

Seeing a solid case of self refutation is so incredibly fulfilling.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#69

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:28 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Tuesday, Jul 30 2013, 16:00)
QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 30 2013, 13:45)
so I really see no problem with allowing pedophiles to explore their fetish using the medium of animated pornography.

Seeing a solid case of self refutation is so incredibly fulfilling.

self refutation?
you do realize that this was my position all along... right?

I said from the very beginning that pedophiles can have simulated child porn.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#70

Posted 31 July 2013 - 07:54 AM Edited by Otter, 31 July 2013 - 02:22 PM.

Edit- apologies for the smartassness. Fueled by Fireball. wink.gif

What I meant to say, in more polite terms, is that you've just gone and defended pedophilia.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#71

Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:43 AM

what?
no I haven't.

I've defended the right of the pedophile - since their affliction is likely not their own fault - to at least avoid a life of total abstinence or virginity.
defending pedophilia would be allowing the pedophile access to real children or real child porn... which they cannot be allowed.

I'm only agreeing that they don't have to go through life completely sterile.
give them sex dolls that look like children, animated porn, role-playing sex with very petite (but 18 years or older) women/men.

but they can never have real children.
  • Mince and Irviding like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#72

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:19 AM

Either you're confusing pedophilia, the psychiatric condition, with the act of assaulting a child, or you fail to see that acceptance is a defense.

No, defending pedos does not amount to handing them victims. I don't think anyone is arguing that. The defense in this case amounts to saying "it's a condition beyond their control" and that they aren't evil, or choosing to be degenerates. That's it.


@mince: pedophilia and homosexuality are oranges and apples, is what I was getting at. One's wrong, and one's sooooooo right.





El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#73

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:22 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Wednesday, Jul 31 2013, 22:19)
you fail to see that acceptance is a defense.

I disagree.
it's not acceptance either.

it's simply acknowledging the reality that these people exist... and as long as they don't actually harm children, they should still be allowed to have some kind of sex life.
that's not a defense or an acceptance of their behavior and desires.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#74

Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:01 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Wednesday, Jul 31 2013, 20:22)
it's simply acknowledging the reality that these people exist... and (I accept that) as long as they don't actually harm children, <I defend their allowance> to have some kind of sex life.

We're not talking about their desires or behavior here, we're talking about the condition itself. There's a gulf of separation between the two.

You're not only defending their right to live freely, but defending their right to indulge in their disorder.

How do you not see this? Anyone else? Am I crazy?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#75

Posted 01 August 2013 - 09:22 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Wednesday, Jul 31 2013, 23:01)
We're not talking about their desires or behavior here, we're talking about the condition itself.

says who?
seems to me that the OP was a little ambiguous...

pedophilia?
pedophiles?
child sexuality?
adult sexuality disorders?

I didn't find it very clear to begin with.

I AM NOT DEFENDING THEIR "right" TO "indulge in their disorder."
I do not believe they have a "right" to "indulge in their disorder" unless it involves NON-PHYSICAL FACSIMILES of children.

it can never involve actual children.
is that difficult for you to understand??

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#76

Posted 01 August 2013 - 02:12 PM

...caps don't make it any clearer. Masturbating to a comic about children having sex, or to drawings of naked children, or any other related facsimile or material is pedophilia. And if you say that's OK, you're defending it. That's the definition of the word.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#77

Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:21 PM

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Aug 1 2013, 08:12)
...caps don't make it any clearer. Masturbating to a comic about children having sex, or to drawings of naked children, or any other related facsimile or material is pedophilia. And if you say that's OK, you're defending it. That's the definition of the word.

I disagree.
it's also a moot point. we're arguing semantics and it's going nowhere.

move on...

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#78

Posted 02 August 2013 - 04:03 AM Edited by Raavi, 02 August 2013 - 04:05 AM.

Interesting, unfortunately the base for this debate leaves a lot up to the imagination, because of that it's infeasible to answer the questions in the OP in a correct manner. So, let's clear a couple of things up.

First of all, You ask 'is it inherently wrong to sexualise children', what exactly do you mean by children, what age range are you referring to?

Second, Are you solely referring to pedophilia i.e a sexual preference for clearly prepubescent children, or are you also referring to Hebephilia and Ephebophilia, encompassing all paraphilias related to ages 0-18?

Lastly, are you strictly referring to the chronophillic desires, or also to the exercising of these desires i.e child abuse?

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#79

Posted 03 August 2013 - 03:39 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Aug 1 2013, 11:21)
QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Aug 1 2013, 08:12)
...caps don't make it any clearer. Masturbating to a comic about children having sex, or to drawings of naked children, or any other related facsimile or material is pedophilia. And if you say that's OK, you're defending it. That's the definition of the word.

I disagree.
it's also a moot point. we're arguing semantics and it's going nowhere.

move on...

I do believe you were the one to first thrust it into the realm of semantics...

But more to the point, you also brought up the DSM-IV defintion of pedophilia. If you have actually read that, the criteria does not necessitate the individual to have actually acted on any of their desires for it to be pedophilia, just to have had such desires or fantasies. So ultimately, saying that "pedophiles" should have access to even simulated material in order to placate to these desires, it's still condoning pedophilia in some sense.

I get what you're saying really I do (we're on the same page on the whole consent issue and everything), but the problem here is the old thing of when given an inch, there's a mile taken... That is to say once you get people to break down and say, "Okay, they can have access to simulated material," that does kind of open the door up to other questions such as how far is too far? Should super realistic simulated material be legal? Life-like sex-simulate dolls? What about things like child modeling pageants that--as long as there's no nudity--basically serve as softcore child pornography to these people? Eventually, if society gives it any tolerance whatsoever, it will be taken to the ultimate questions posed here such as, "Well, are children really unable to give consent for this sort of thing?" or "Can children really not conceptualize sexuality?" or so on and so forth.

What I think is a more f*cked up thing to think about... Countries with active sex trades involving young children like Cambodia... Some of these kids will earn more money in a night than their family would have hoped to in an entire lifetime. It kind of makes a person wonder if it's really all that bad and horrible for them, or if they might in fact be better off...




El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#80

Posted 03 August 2013 - 05:09 AM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 21:39)
So ultimately, saying that "pedophiles" should have access to even simulated material in order to placate to these desires, it's still condoning pedophilia in some sense.

I get what you're saying really I do (we're on the same page on the whole consent issue and everything), but the problem here is the old thing of when given an inch, there's a mile taken.

I still completely disagree.

acknowledging that pedophiles exist - and will probably always exist - is not CONDONING their behavior.
it's nothing more than the acknowledgement of reality and looking for humane ways to address it while protecting children from physical assault.

it's a lot more simple than you're making it...

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#81

Posted 03 August 2013 - 07:38 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 21:09)
QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 21:39)
So ultimately, saying that "pedophiles" should have access to even simulated material in order to placate to these desires, it's still condoning pedophilia in some sense.

I get what you're saying really I do (we're on the same page on the whole consent issue and everything), but the problem here is the old thing of when given an inch, there's a mile taken.

I still completely disagree.

acknowledging that pedophiles exist - and will probably always exist - is not CONDONING their behavior.
it's nothing more than the acknowledgement of reality and looking for humane ways to address it while protecting children from physical assault.

it's a lot more simple than you're making it...

But that's only half of what you've argued. I honestly don't know why I expect anything else from you.


Sag - there's a lingering question in my mind - if one subcribes to the notion that pornography "demeans" the subject, does that not, in some degree, imply that simulated child pornography still damages children?

Also, re: Cambodia. I doubt those kids grow up to have mentally healthy lives.

Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#82

Posted 03 August 2013 - 09:00 PM Edited by mincemate003, 03 August 2013 - 09:06 PM.

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Aug 1 2013, 10:12)
...caps don't make it any clearer. Masturbating to a comic about children having sex, or to drawings of naked children, or any other related facsimile or material is pedophilia. And if you say that's OK, you're defending it. That's the definition of the word.

I would agree with El Diablo in his position on simulated child porn. If that is considered defending pedophilia, then sure, I guess I'm defending pedophilia. Saying "I am defending pedophilia" doesn't mean I'm defending everything that falls under the umbrella, though. Sagacious pointed this out:

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 23:39)
If you have actually read that, the criteria does not necessitate the individual to have actually acted on any of their desires for it to be pedophilia, just to have had such desires or fantasies.  So ultimately, saying that "pedophiles" should have access to even simulated material in order to placate to these desires, it's still condoning pedophilia in some sense.


Defending the right of a person to, well, exist, when they have a disorder that they've not chosen (which is to have sexual desires for children) is not the same as defending their right to have sex with any child (which none of us here would say is a right). If we are defending their ability to act out their desires in a way that doesn't harm anyone, then yes, I'm okay with defending it. And if you're against these people holding their sexual desires and not acting on them, and they can't necessarily get rid of them, well, what would you propose doing? Interviewing/testing every adult to find those that are sexually attracted to kids, and jailing them immediately?

Like it's already been said in several posts, a model of a naked child can easily be produced (if not from common knowledge, from scientific images and diagrams). We can then argue the slippery slope, like whether or not producing simulated child pornography (whatever it may contain, I'm not exactly sure what pedos enjoy) would increase child abuse, but I'd say it's still more practical than making them live a life with no sexual release. Having no sexual release does typically lead to more problems, so it's a case of less child abuse vs. more child abuse, imo.

QUOTE (Raavi @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 00:03)
Interesting, unfortunately the base for this debate leaves a lot up to the imagination, because of that it's infeasible to answer the questions in the OP in a correct manner. So, let's clear a couple of things up.

First of all, You ask 'is it inherently wrong to sexualise children', what exactly do you mean by children, what age range are you referring to?

Second, Are you solely referring to pedophilia i.e a sexual preference for clearly prepubescent children, or are you also referring to Hebephilia and Ephebophilia, encompassing all paraphilias related to ages 0-18?

Lastly, are you strictly referring to the chronophillic desires, or also to the exercising of these desires i.e child abuse?


I would definitely say that the conversation becomes less about child abuse as the age of the child in question goes up (into the teen years). Again, there are many western or modernized countries that have varying age of consent laws, so 17 and under can't feasibly be the sole check box for child abuse (it can be higher in some cases, lower in some cases). Most posts have just focused on prepubescents.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Aug 2 2013, 23:39)
I get what you're saying really I do (we're on the same page on the whole consent issue and everything), but the problem here is the old thing of when given an inch, there's a mile taken...  That is to say once you get people to break down and say, "Okay, they can have access to simulated material," that does kind of open the door up to other questions such as how far is too far?  Should super realistic simulated material be legal?  Life-like sex-simulate dolls?  What about things like child modeling pageants that--as long as there's no nudity--basically serve as softcore child pornography to these people?  Eventually, if society gives it any tolerance whatsoever, it will be taken to the ultimate questions posed here such as, "Well, are children really unable to give consent for this sort of thing?" or "Can children really not conceptualize sexuality?" or so on and so forth.


If/when realistic simulated child pornography gains a noticeable market, lawmakers (at least in the U.S.) will probably take the initiative to amend the Constitution (and state constitutions) to ban any sex between adults and minors, apart from existing Romeo and Juliet laws, which would cut out some of the hypotheticals. And assuming pedophilia remains classified as a disorder by major western medical associations, and is shown to harm children, those laws (hopefully) wouldn't be going anywhere.

Oh, and:

QUOTE (Ferocious Banger @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 09:02)
Paedophilia just can't be wholly defended. How the f*ck can you defend a 45 year old f*cking the bones out of a 4 year old? How? If it's between a 19 year old and a 17 year old, it is different in my view, for both have about the same mental maturity.


The irony of your username right now. sneaky2.gif

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#83

Posted 04 August 2013 - 12:51 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Saturday, Aug 3 2013, 13:38)
But that's only half of what you've argued. I honestly don't know why I expect anything else from you.

look if you cannot follow a train of thought, then stop coming in here and trying to tell me what I mean.
I know what I mean. I've been consistent since reply #1.

acknowledging that pedophiles exist is not condoning their behavior.
I don't know how else to say it turn.gif

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#84

Posted 04 August 2013 - 08:33 AM

Mince, I think the side argument about diablo's broken thought process may have detailed the conversation - I agree with you completely.

I do, however, find the resolution troubling and wish there were a finer point to be be drawn. I do believe that fictional representations do pose a threat to children in some degree but can't find anything logical to express it.

Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#85

Posted 04 August 2013 - 08:57 PM

I see. And while I don't agree with El Diablo on parts of his argument, I don't see how his thought process is broken.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#86

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Otter @ Sunday, Aug 4 2013, 08:33)
I do believe that fictional representations do pose a threat to children in some degree but can't find anything logical to express it.

Do you think it could just be that you resent their orientation and don't want them to indulge themselves in any way? That seems to be a common line of thinking among many, that a pedophile mustn't even THINK about children, or do anything - no matter how small - to give themselves sexual release.
Many people want them castrated, chemically or otherwise, their disapproval moves beyond wanting to punish criminal elements, it seems a desire to control what they think.

I don't think you're alone in begrudging them even fictional images of children, but I hope you can try to understand how difficult it must be for them and the logic behind working with them to form some kind of mutual concordance that both protects children and allows the pedophile a way to legally sate themselves.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#87

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:33 PM

In purely hypothetical terms, it doesn't pose a threat. There's no clear objective and empirical connection between exposure to simulated child pornography and violent or abnormal sexual behaviour as far as I'm aware. But there are tangible links between people who view real child abuse images, and an increased likelihood of going on to commit criminal sexual acts. Whilst I do believe that the best way to treat paedophiles is medically as opposed to judicially, I don't buy into the idea that providing them with all the legal but simulated sexual gratification they want will reduce the number of paedophiles who go on to commit violent or abhorrent sexual acts against real people. Any more than providing rape porn for other kinds of violent sexual offenders would.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#88

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:46 PM

Don't you see anything wrong with the idea of trying to 'cure' them, though? It makes me sick to think of people being drugged out of their minds simply so they conform to societal notions of beauty instead of what they are naturally attracted to.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#89

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:54 PM

QUOTE (Otter @ Sunday, Aug 4 2013, 02:33)
I do believe that fictional representations do pose a threat to children in some degree but can't find anything logical to express it.

so you agree with me sigh.gif

took you long enough to figure it out tounge2.gif

QUOTE (mincemate)
while I don't agree with El Diablo on parts of his argument, I don't see how his thought process is broken.

thank you... monocle.gif

Tyler
  • Tyler

    tempora labuntur

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#90

Posted 04 August 2013 - 11:12 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, Aug 4 2013, 15:46)
Don't you see anything wrong with the idea of trying to 'cure' them, though? It makes me sick to think of people being drugged out of their minds simply so they conform to societal notions of beauty instead of what they are naturally attracted to.

Can't tell if you're serious here but you basically described a good portion of people who have mental health issues and what happens with them already. The simple truth of the matter is that we as a society don't really know how to help the individual in every case, and when that option is nonexistent then we tend to look at the solution as something for the greater good. I don't necessarily agree with that (not a utilitarian) but that's how it has always worked, and I've got a good guess that says it'll continue that way for a long while. Well, as long as we're compromising our morals to live together in society, anyway.
  • Moth likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users