Mod The Sims - What rights should pedophiles have?

unalisaa

15th Nov 2010, 05:06 PM

None. :rolleyes:
So being assigned an unwanted fetish robs you of all rights to be treated as a human being? Being a paedophile makes it all right for people to own you, you shouldn't be allowed to vote, and you shouldn't be able to own any property?

I worry that they will act on their fantasies no matter what. The sex drive is very powerful, after all.
I think this depends on how you think about it. On one hand, acting out fantasies in a safe environment without harming anyone can be useful to keep things under control. On the other, there is the worry that this will somehow destigmatise sexual attraction to children and thus encourage molestation. I don't know. I guess it depends on the person.
However, if there is more openness about paedophilia as a medical condition, it may make more paedophiles willing to take personal responsibility and get therapy/be more careful. If you don't risk getting shot by your neighbours for telling them you like-like kids, maybe you'd be more inclined to do so. They'd respond with politely keeping their children away from you, and it wouldn't be a problem.

Obviously I'm talking about pedophiles who do not commit crimes against children (while assuming those exist)
Episode 183 of Dan Savage's podcast Savage Lovecast dealt with this (it's about 10 minutes in). A paedophile phoned in and asked for advice, and Savage and a doctor discussed the implications, possible treatments, precautions he should take to avoid being tempted, etc. It's quite a thought-provoking listen.
It is not at all safe for work, children, or sensitive adults, though, so I won't post a link. It should be fairly easy to find if you're interested.

crocobaura

15th Nov 2010, 05:25 PM

As long as real kids don't get hurt, I see no reason to blame someone for their fantasies and imagination. There's enough porn to satisfy every twisted fantasy people may have. The only problem is no one can guarantee they'll stop at fiction and won't carry through their desires and this makes people wary.

whiterider

15th Nov 2010, 05:28 PM

Why, TheCreeper?

The same rights as anyone else. There are people who fantasise about rape, read and watch porn about it, roleplay it - I find that sick and disgusting, and I would be appalled to discover that I was having sex with such a person and would get the fuck out; but there's nothing damaging about such people having their fantasies or watching their porn - as one man whose name I've long forgotten said, I'd rather they make believe about it on their own or with consenting adults than go out and do it for real. The same is true of people who find torture (I mean, permanent physical damage or death torture - not more normal levels of BDSM) arousing; and those who find the idea of beastiality arousing (furries, anyone?) - why should we treat people who are aroused by the idea of sex with children any different?

Fantasy is not reality - and as soon as any of the above try to cross that line they should be in jail. But the majority of people in the world have little difficulty keeping fantasy from reality - of course, there are always some, but we have to deal with those as the minority they are; arrest, detain and try to rehabilitate the few individuals who harm another, rather than mistreat them along with thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of others who'd never hurt a fly.

Paedophilia is something of a special case, as the majority of paedophile porn inherently involves hurting people in its making - knowingly watching porn which was created through abuse should not be allowed, as supply and demand is such a powerful force. But then maybe it's not so special - you have child porn on the one hand, and anime child porn or 18-yearolds dressed up as 15-yearolds on the other; you have films of sexual assaults on the one hand, and consenting adults acting out a rape scene on the other. That which is made by abuse should be as illegal as the abuse itself, as should using it; the rest, well, I'd avoid it like the fucking plague, but that's personal preference.

Of course, we can still disapprove or be reviled, and think that such people shouldn't even indulge their fantasies as fantasies, and that they should try to put it out of their minds altogether. But you can't take away someone's rights because you don't like what they think. That's completely contrary to the basic purpose of the concept of rights.

ETA: On the subject of that book, as I understand it it provides advice on having sex with children. As such it should be treated like a book providing advice on any other type of crime - certainly Amazon would not stock it.

el_flel

15th Nov 2010, 07:04 PM

You're on a debate roll lately, jooxis!

To answer your questions:
Do you think society should treat pedophiles differently just because they have certain desires (but don't act on them because they know it's wrong)? I believe pedophiles do not choose to be that way, so is it wrong to abuse their rights over something they have no control of?I think it is wrong and they shouldn't be treated differently in terms of their rights. They are still human, in this situation haven't actually committed an offence, I also do not think that most paedophiles have control over their paraphilia (although they do have control over what they do about it), and I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that someone with it shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else. Even if they have committed an offence against a child I don't see how one could reasonably justify removing any rights from them that aren't directly related to their offence. And why just paedophiles?

Do you think animated pornography (not with real kids), sex dolls, books, blogs, etc. aimed at pedophiles should be legal? Should books like this one be censored? In other words, should pedophiles be allowed to indulge in their fantasies provided that no actual children are being harmed?I'm kind of on the fence for reasons others have mentioned - namely that it's better for them to act out their desires with things that aren't real than with real children - however, I do lean more towards that they shouldn't be allowed these things. My reason for this is that I kind of think that providing them with any stimuli is indulging their paraphilia and by allowing them to do this is sort of making it seem acceptable. I don't think they should be encouraged to act it out; they should be encouraged to seek help and try and change their thinking process.

The problem with paedophilia is that it's not quite as black and white as we like to think. There was some research conducted (can't remember who by) in which adult males - non-paedophiles - were shown 'erotic' images of children and a surprisingly high number of them became aroused. Many paedophiles can be, or are, also attracted to adults. Some become attracted to children because they have problems relating to people their own age. For some it's to do with power. Some people who sexually abuse children get branded as a paedophile when they aren't really, and vice versa. Some know that by having sexual contact with children they are doing something wrong, others honestly believe that it isn't wrong at all. And so on and so on. It's a really complex area.

paksetti

15th Nov 2010, 07:09 PM

Saying someone will harm a child because they have pedophiliac fantasies is like saying someone will set their office on fire because they hate their boss.

Sure, a tiny portion of people will, but most will just leave it in their head. Fantasy is fantasy, reality is reality. (Of course, statutory rape is different than forced rape, but my point remains that fantasy is fantasy.)

Nekowolf

15th Nov 2010, 07:43 PM

It might be a bit off-topic, but, well, whatever.

Last month, I had to do something for my poetry class where we, the whole class, went down into the college courtyard (or rather, the hallway next to it, as outside was too windy) and went through a list of simple, short obituaries, from 2004 to 2008. They were all deaths by domestic abuse and violence. In some ways, for me, pedophiles are the same way.

With both, I can be sympathetic, because they have deep problems, but only up to a point. Once they actually -do- something, the sympathy is completely gone; once they do something, I want nothing more but for them to be thrown into prison and made to suffer for what they had did. It's definitely not right of me, but at the same time, while I'm feeling enraged by their actions, rationale turns off a bit for a moment, and I really don't care that it's wrong. All I'm thinking is throw their asses into prison, and eye for an eye.

Oh, and also: "Do you think animated pornography (not with real kids)" - I think lolicon and shotacon is a little different in some respects. Like, uh... well like much hentai, er, how to say it. I think it's closer to futanari and tentacles rather than things like books, sex dolls, blogs, etc. If that makes -any- sense. Er, I might not be, cause right now, I'm having a headache and thinking is a bit off.

dutch

16th Nov 2010, 02:04 AM

Well I think because it's some inner hunger that manifests itself inside of them without their knowledge or control, you can say to some degree that they deserve to be treated equally as everyone else - maybe with some watching over here and there to make sure the hunger doesn't get the better part of them.

They're humans, and if we have given ourselves human rights, they should be entitled to them too. If they do wrong things, they will be punished by either law or directed to professional help, just like any other types of criminal. If they ARE pedophiles but they're somehow, somehow able to suppress it, why not treat them like non-pedophiles? The last thing we'd wanna do, IMO, is to make them feel excluded and stereotyped against. That might just trigger them to be like "Oh to hell with it, I'll just go get myself some... :3"

paksetti

16th Nov 2010, 02:45 AM

... You say "hunger" like they're zombies.

dutch

16th Nov 2010, 03:08 AM

Bad choice of words... but yknow what I mean. xD

ElementMK

16th Nov 2010, 03:43 AM

Let me tell you a story of a guy I once knew. His name was Aaron, Mark, or Wendell. I forget. The point is, he was an everyman. We all know someone like him.

When he and I met, we quickly became friends. We'd hang out after school and eat Cheetos while playing Halo. One day, I was joking about how he never had a girlfriend. He glanced down and explained to me, in his words, that he "loved cock". He went on to explain that the community was too small to suit his preferences. Being a progressive young man, I remained friends with him, but I informed him that I was not interested in him. "Thanks for the heads up", he laughed, "but you'd hardly fit my criteria."

A few weeks later, we decided to hang out at his house for his upcoming birthday along with some of his friends that were coming from upstate. He asked if I could come early and help him set up for the party, and I gladly obliged. I arrived about a half-hour earlier than he asked, due to an early bus schedule. I didn't think he'd worry. When I entered his house, there was no one in the living room. However, I heard a foreign, muffled voice in the hallway. I was fearful for my friend, so I snuck into the hallway to get a clearer listen. A voice was yelling violently (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1tPuZQlIH0&feature=related) within the office. Panicked, I threw the door open and saw my friend with his pants down, pleasuring himself to a YouTube video of man speaking with a Cockney accent!

It sickened me. My friend reassured me that he'd never do something to a Cockney speaker, because he knew they'd be emotionally scarred by the sight of his circumcised penis. I didn't hear a word of it. I called the police, and they threw him in jail for harboring Cockney pornography.

Anyways, the moral of this story is that anyone with a fetish that seems surreal or wrong should be thrown in jail and chastised for life, even if they make every effort not to act on those desires.

appelsapgodin

16th Nov 2010, 02:39 PM

Saying someone will harm a child because they have pedophiliac fantasies is like saying someone will set their office on fire because they hate their boss.
No, it is like saying someone will set the office on fire because they are pyromaniac. Hate is far more subjective than a mental illness, and our brains have more boundaries against acting on hate than acting on the mental illness which can even affect those boundaries. It still doesn't mean that a person who does know the difference between wrong or right will act upon their pyromancy or pedophily, but hate is a completely different urge.

I guess as a society you have a few choices when it comes to pedofiles (or pyromaniacs for that matter.)

1: Kill them all (or castrate, lobotomise), so they definitely won't be a problem in the future.

2: Put them away for ever. An island for pedofiles, they won't bother the rest of society anymore.

3: Let them life in society among the rest, but give them all a guard. Or a chip or something so they can be followed all day. (This could create extra jobs.)

4: Treat them as every human being around until they do a punishable offense and then follow the laws (which can include psychological treatment also).

I guess it depends on what kind of society you want to be when choosing between methods.

Edit: I also think that most pedofiles have become so because they were traumatised sexually as children themselves. So, this means that in a way they are also victims. In a way you will have to have some empathy for their situation. I'm not sure if this means that if you find a way to protect children from (sexual) abuse, you will ban out pedophily in society eventually, but I do think it will lessen it severely.

Rawra

16th Nov 2010, 04:47 PM

1: Kill them all (or castrate, lobotomise), so they definitely won't be a problem in the future.
Castrate them. I'd castrate them!!! Because I couldn't STAND to be near a human being who fantasises about having sex with children without beating the hell out of him and eventually kill him. It makes me sick to even THINK about these people!!!

kiwi_tea

16th Nov 2010, 04:51 PM

One of the most horrific murders in recent history in New Zealand was by a group of people who killed an elderly pedophile who had recently been released decades on from his crime. Some of the bloodlust in this topic has nothing to do with keeping people safe, and everything to do with irrational, angry, hateful panic. It is quite disgusting to see. To want to castrate and kill sick people, that's better than their sickness, is it?

Malakaaz

16th Nov 2010, 04:53 PM

the right to say goodbye to their winkie and sack before it's forcibly removed

Quote the poster above me:
"One of the most horrific murders in recent history in New Zealand was by a group of people who killed an elderly pedophile who had recently been released decades on from his crime. Some of the bloodlust in this topic has nothing to do with keeping people safe, and everything to do with irrational, angry, hateful panic. It is quite disgusting to see. To want to castrate and kill sick people, that's better than their sickness, is it?"

I don't advocate the above type of behavior that the poster refers to...but honestly, we're talking about children and protecting them.

Rawra

16th Nov 2010, 05:09 PM

If I was a parent and a paedophile was fantasising about my child, the paedophile would be found dead and castrated the next day. And I wouldn't care if I'd get thrown in jail.

Malakaaz

16th Nov 2010, 05:15 PM

People actually disagree with castrating sexual predators? Am I seeing that right?! Look, everybody has issues. Fine if someone has an issue with desiring sex with children. But when they cross that line and forcibly abduct an innocent child or manipulate a child into engaging in sexual activity...the offender should be dealt with. We can discuss what really is behind the motivation for the perps sexual behavior toward children -- maybe it isn't a sexual desire at all, but a need to control and overpower. Who knows! The end result is the same in the harm of an innocent child.

Castration does reduce the testosterone levels, thereby reducing libido and aggression. This should also be coupled with treatment of the brain (whether by chemical or other means). And some of you disagree with this?

Why? Don't just click a button...discuss. Give me your thoughts on how to protect children.

HystericalParoxysm

16th Nov 2010, 05:23 PM

TheCreeper - If you actually WERE a parent, you might stop to think for a moment that your child would actually be better off with you there with them every day to guide them through life, rather than in jail on murder charges. If a parent thinks someone is a danger to their child, it's their responsibility to protect their child - by removing them from that person's presence, not by mutilating and murdering that person. "You're not allowed to be anywhere near my kid any more," is a lot more reasonable response that allows you to actually see your child grow up. And if they -had- been victimized, you'd be there to help them through that - rather than having them been victimized AND having their parent taken away from them as a murderer shortly thereafter.

I don't know how you would even KNOW someone was -fantasizing- about your child. It's one thing if they've said or done something, but pure fantasy is something you can't even know about.

TheCreeper/Malakaaz - Just to be clear, in this debate, as established by the OP, we are not talking about people who have actually done anything to children. These are purely -hypothetical- pedophiles, and barring somehow subjecting every person to a brain scan to see if they have sexual feelings about children, I don't know how you'd even begin to try to deal with that, nevermind the ethical implications of invading someone's brain like that. There already -are- systems in place to deal with people who have been convicted of crimes against children - including imprisonment, counselling, and in some extreme cases, medication. I think you two are, erm, kinda missing the point - nobody's saying "woo, people who hurt children are awesome!" - the point of this debate is to explore the issues around people who have never committed a crime against a child, but have fantasies and desires in that realm and the materials and whatnot they may have associated with it - such as drawings, stories, etc., and whether THOSE things should be regulated/legal/whatever.

kiwi_tea

16th Nov 2010, 05:23 PM

we're talking about children and protecting them.

Absolutely we are, but we're talking about how we can do that within boundaries of a civil, humane society. Shall we cut the hands of compulsive thieves as well, or the heads off Wall Street executives (which would probably go further to protecting children at any rate)? Pedophiles need treatment, therapy, and in some cases life imprisonment without release alongside those. Imagine how guilty they must feel, most of them, and imagine how fucked up! They are fucked up, that's the worst thing, they really are - but making them feel fucked up and evil won't help. They need our help, our understanding, and our firm hand. Not our hysterics and insane threats of castration and destruction.

Also, bear in mind that (a) not all pedophiles are male, just the vast majority (b) not all pedophiles have committed pedophilia. That complicates matters further.

And I wouldn't care if I'd get thrown in jail.

Who cares what you care at that point. It's where you would belong for such an heinous crime. For life.

appelsapgodin

16th Nov 2010, 05:33 PM

Castrate them. I'd castrate them!!! Because I couldn't STAND to be near a human being who fantasises about having sex with children without beating the hell out of him and eventually kill him. It makes me sick to even THINK about these people!!!Personally I'd like to live in a society which can have a little empathy.

Malakaaz

16th Nov 2010, 06:04 PM

My bad then. I am guilty of inferring that the guilt is already established based on the title of the thread alone. I suppose I just wanted to cover the instance of a person who actually DOES cross that line from "fantasy" to reality. Hypothetically speaking, of course you wouldn't castrate anybody (hence the clarification in my second post regarding this issue).

I am actually surprised at the amount of empathy that is being displayed in this thread. It is encouraging to see. I will admit that upon seeing the title thread, I initially reacted and posted my instinctual response: get rid of the perp's ability to harm the innocent child. Perhaps a better title for the thread may have been "pedophilia-thoughts." Though I do apologize for not reading more thoroughly.

kiwi_tea: Can we compare castration for hurting a child to cutting off a hand for say stealing bread? Sure. But I would never be moved to desire such a drastic measure for simply stealing a loaf of bread. A loaf of bread is not a child.

My own experiences have caused me to be what I consider "realistic" with regard to this point of view, in that very few offenders that I have dealt with express any remorse at all. Innocent lives gone. Never to come back. Families shattered. Yea, I think I may be a bit too biased for a simple debate on this issue. Had I known that it was merely a hypothetical type of discussion, I'd have stayed out. No offense meant to anybody. I did even skim every post (including the OP). Just went back to re-read the OP's post...saw that final line. :faceslap: Apologies. Just quite an emotional issue with me. :beer:

Absolutely we are, but we're talking about how we can do that within boundaries of a civil, humane society. Shall we cut the hands of compulsive thieves as well, or the heads off Wall Street executives (which would probably go further to protecting children at any rate)? Pedophiles need treatment, therapy, and in some cases life imprisonment without release alongside those. Imagine how guilty they must feel, most of them, and imagine how fucked up! They are fucked up, that's the worst thing, they really are - but making them feel fucked up and evil won't help. They need our help, our understanding, and our firm hand. Not our hysterics and insane threats of castration and destruction.

Also, bear in mind that (a) not all pedophiles are male, just the vast majority (b) not all pedophiles have committed pedophilia. That complicates matters further.

Who cares what you care at that point. It's where you would belong for such an heinous crime. For life.

appelsapgodin

16th Nov 2010, 06:24 PM

Anyway, there is one question that makes me concerned. Why should we allow pedophiles to indulge in their fantasies when we can encourage them to be treated? Is that what they need? I mean a therapy, psychological treatment might help them regain their confidence and society's approval [...] I only know one thing: pedophiles should accept help. Without that, the situation will stay unchanged.
Quote for truth. I don't agree with everything in Wojtek's post, but I do think this is the base of the problem and the base thought on which we might as society get rid of as many pedophiles as possible.

whiterider

16th Nov 2010, 06:25 PM

A philia is desire or affection, not an action, so the thread title is appropriate. It know what you mean though - of course, as HP said, the only paedophiles we ever know are paedophiles are those who do commit a crime, so it's hard to separate the two concepts.

I would agree, though, that child abuse isn't comparable to theft - and I have to admit that I, in principle, would probably support the castration of rapists (whether their victims are adults or children). However this could never be put into practise in a civilised society, as the justice system is not foolproof: I would never condone mutilation, as much as I might want to, as a punishment because the prospect of a falsely accused person being subjected to such a thing is utterly contrary to the principles of a judicial system.

Malakaaz

16th Nov 2010, 06:28 PM

Wojtek, I like your point about treating people with pedophila-thoughts rather than merely allowing them to indulge in their fantasies. In psychology/criminal studies, I came to understand (wrongfully perhaps?) that indulging in fantasies isn't so much a "healthy outlet" that prevents rape/pedophilia but rather a slippery slope that appeases for a while but ultimately loses its ability to pacify, hence the rapist/pedophile eventually requires a greater thrill to pacify. Can any society show such a level of empathy that someone with such issues could even attempt to get help (if they indeed want it...)? I was actually shocked at one poster's remark that all Americans are assholes. With such levels of non-thinking and judgment, how would a person who has fantasies about harming your child be on the receiving end of any sympathy whatsoever? I fear humanity has a long way to go....

el_flel

16th Nov 2010, 06:43 PM

Oh god, I actually agreed with Wojtek on something! As I said earlier, I personally don't think it's healthy or appropriate to allow paedophiles to indulge in their desires to have sexual contact with children, even when it's not with real kids. The reason being is that paedophilia is quite different from any other paraphilia (except perhaps those who fantasise about rape) in that it is harmful because there can never be consent in a child-adult sexual relationship. It is true that that person might never actually act on their desires but I think it's really important to that they don't indulge in them in any form because, to me, it implies some sort of acceptance.

And on the topic of castration: I don't think it would be fair at all to force that on someone, however I fully support those men who have had it done voluntarily (there was a really interesting documentary here called "Louis Theroux: A Place for Paedophiles" - it's available to watch on youtube if you're interested). It shows that they have remorse and that they actually don't want to molest children anymore. In a strange way it's sort of commendable because that is a very extreme step to go down.

kiwi_tea

16th Nov 2010, 06:50 PM

In psychology/criminal studies, I came to understand (wrongfully perhaps?) that indulging in fantasies isn't so much a "healthy outlet" that prevents rape/pedophilia but rather a slippery slope that appeases for a while but ultimately loses its ability to pacify, hence the rapist/pedophile eventually requires a greater thrill to pacify.

My impression, although I come from outside psychology/criminal studies and have only encountered these issues in terms of literature and psychology through literature, is that that is one competing theory of many, and that whether indulgence is harmful or beneficial is far from a settled question.

It's true, a loaf of bread is not a child. Not remotely so. But there are some quite fundamental rights about control over our own bodies that I don't think ought to collapse for the sake of criminal status. Admittedly, the US justice system allows the death penalty in some places, so clearly they're not quite as fundamental rights there, but is there a precedent for subjecting prisoners to unwanted surgery and mutilation? I hope not. This is an issue that, if it can't be managed with therapy and counselling (and perhaps at a stretch pharmaceuticals), ought to be managed with lifelong imprisonment. But not with bodily mutilation.

dutch

16th Nov 2010, 06:56 PM

After having read a few of the posts above, all of which I agree with to a certain extent, I think it boils down to a matter of acceptance?

Pedophiles should accept the fact that they are abnormal, as compared to the rest of the common population, and hence seek as much professional help as possible, instead of closing doors to the world and just look for ways to indulge in fantasies of their own. They probably, somewhat, know where that'll get them.

On the other head, the scary part about pedophiles is that we hardly ever see them being open and honest about their state of mind, and as a result we fear their actions that we never see coming. The general society needs to accept the fact that these people are born that way - sometimes even their conscious and (what we consider) wrong/sick decisions might also be due to that inborn nature, which triumphs rational reasoning - and therefore show some empathy. Maybe then, people with such conditions can be less hesitant to open up about their nature so that there's no more lurking in the dark. And that will make pedophiles seem much less threatening.

I mean, that doesn't seem like something immediately achievable, but should the society go in that direction instead of hate all over the place?

el_flel

16th Nov 2010, 07:16 PM

I mean, that doesn't seem like something immediately achievable, but should the society go in that direction instead of hate all over the place?Yeah, definitely. One of the biggest problems IMO with trying to deal with offenders (and I realise this is slightly off topic but it's still relevant in a more general sense) is the general public and their attitudes towards the criminal justice system. Many have this "lock them all up" or "hang them" mentalities without stopping to actually think about the real life implications of that. Rehabilitation is about not just helping the offender, but about helping soiety. It's far more productive and beneficial to work on intervention treatments rather than just stick one's head in the sand and ignore the deeper issues. If everyone thought like that then we'd never learn anything about anything, would we?

unalisaa

16th Nov 2010, 07:51 PM

Wojtek, I like your point about treating people with pedophila-thoughts rather than merely allowing them to indulge in their fantasies. In psychology/criminal studies, I came to understand (wrongfully perhaps?) that indulging in fantasies isn't so much a "healthy outlet" that prevents rape/pedophilia but rather a slippery slope that appeases for a while but ultimately loses its ability to pacify, hence the rapist/pedophile eventually requires a greater thrill to pacify.

The thing is, should paedophilia-porn be considered an "outlet" to keep children from being molested, or can we as a society trust someone to take personal responsibility for their actions? I'd say that as long as your porn is not hurting anyone, you are, as a human being in your right to be turned on by whatever you're turned on by and to pursue whatever (ethically produced) material that tickles your fancy. The right to be a sexual person is a right like so many other things, and as long as you're not committing any crimes, you should retain that right.

Rawra

16th Nov 2010, 08:02 PM

About my previous post: I replied to TheCreeper's post because I believed he wanted to comment on the shops/legality/books thing, not about the laws like housing, taxes, inheritance etc.

I'm a she . :)

And yeah, I'm very radical about paedophiles. Be them only fantasising or actually doing it. Because from wishes to reality is just one small step.

unalisaa

16th Nov 2010, 08:11 PM

Be them only fantasising or actually doing it. Because from wishes to reality is just one small step.
Have you ever wished to punch someone in the face because they made you angry? Did you do it?
Ever wanted to stand closer to someone you had a secret, unrequited crush on? Did you do it?

Rawra

16th Nov 2010, 08:14 PM

The punching, yeah. Once or twice. But I didn't say that every wish would definitely become truth, but that the "distance" between wish and reality is one step. And that if you are willing enough, you'd make that step.

pinketamine

16th Nov 2010, 08:39 PM

This is a complex topic. Firstly, the book itself, Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure, is supposed to be giving tips for the pedophiles to actually commit crimes but without getting a punishment or getting a soft punishment. That is my conclusion reading the comments in the link jooxis provided, I haven't read the book (and I don't think I'll do it), so I'm just basing myself on what the comments have said. If that is true, then that book should not be sold on Amazon, and it also has all my disgust, because enforcing sexual crimes against children is something that shouldn't be legally allowed.

On pedophilia itself; I have always considered pedophilia as a mental disease, as most (if not all) paraphilias. The problem with it, is that the sexual desire is directed to children, so the "satisfaction" of those desires leads to something illegal, socially unacceptable, abusive and traumatizing for the victims. These circumstances make pedophiles a socially discriminated individuals, who receive all the hate of the general society, even if they have never done anything illegal. And this isn't fair.

There are many people who have violent fantasies, or fantasies that involve criminal activities, or ethically punishable (I mean activities that are not illegal but aren't accepted by the majority of the society) activities, but if this fantasies don't lead into a real crime, you can't do nothing. Everyone is the owner of their dreams and fantasies.

I think that the question you did is really difficult, jooxis because on one side, maybe this "normalization" of their disorder, could make them feel like their desires are something normal and there isn't any problem with it. I don't think that pedophilia is something normal, I think these people should have psychological help, for them to canalize their desires in a non criminal way. In this sense, I think that porn that does not involve real child is ok, I prefer it to those porn films that picture real child abuse.

Summarizing, if a pedophile does not commit any crimes, they (he or she, because there are probable pedophile females too) should be treated as any other person, and (if possible) should also have some help for canalizing these desires in a non harmful way.

People actually disagree with castrating sexual predators? Am I seeing that right?! Look, everybody has issues. Fine if someone has an issue with desiring sex with children. But when they cross that line and forcibly abduct an innocent child or manipulate a child into engaging in sexual activity...the offender should be dealt with. We can discuss what really is behind the motivation for the perps sexual behavior toward children -- maybe it isn't a sexual desire at all, but a need to control and overpower. Who knows! The end result is the same in the harm of an innocent child.

Castration does reduce the testosterone levels, thereby reducing libido and aggression. This should also be coupled with treatment of the brain (whether by chemical or other means). And some of you disagree with this?
.
I DO disagree with castrating "sexual predators", and I consider that if the "sexual predator" himself/herself does not offer to suffer that chemical castration process you don't have any right to impose it to them. Castration reduces the testosterone level, but women have low testosterone levels and we still have sexual desire. It has been proved, that even when castration is produces by chemicals and there is not really a possibility of having an erection, sometimes sexual criminals just will use some kind of object to abuse of their victims. So I don't think that castration solves the problem.
Imposing a medical treatment of any kind to someone is not justifiable, as these people go to jail if they commit a crime and they can ask for those treatments if they consider that the treatment can help them, but it should be a personal decision.
If someone has the tendency to commit robberies with violence or is a serial killer, you won't ask for a lobotomy, so I don't see WHY you should treat pedophiles in a different way.

I hope I made myself somehow clear, it is a bit difficult for me expressing my opinion about this topic in english.

wickedblue

16th Nov 2010, 08:51 PM

On the other head, the scary part about pedophiles is that we hardly ever see them being open and honest about their state of mind, and as a result we fear their actions that we never see coming. The general society needs to accept the fact that these people are born that way - sometimes even their conscious and (what we consider) wrong/sick decisions might also be due to that inborn nature, which triumphs rational reasoning - and therefore show some empathy. Maybe then, people with such conditions can be less hesitant to open up about their nature so that there's no more lurking in the dark. And that will make pedophiles seem much less threatening.

I mean, that doesn't seem like something immediately achievable, but should the society go in that direction instead of hate all over the place?

It's an emotional issue and because of that it's really hard for people to remain objective. As someone else pointed out earlier, people usually blur pedophilia with child molestation. One is a desire, the other is a criminal act with a victim. So, the person who has the desire but wants to get help is shamed into silence because if they admitted they had this desire, they would be judged and hung by their peers. They should be given a safe space to admit their desires without fear that if a child goes missing in the neighborhood, the mob is going to be at their doorstep accusing them of a crime.

SuicidiaParasidia

16th Nov 2010, 09:42 PM

Do you think society should treat pedophiles differently just because they have certain desires (but don't act on them because they know it's wrong)?
Do you think animated pornography (not with real kids), sex dolls, books, blogs, etc. aimed at pedophiles should be legal? Should books like this one be censored? In other words, should pedophiles be allowed to indulge in their fantasies provided that no actual children are being harmed?
I believe pedophiles do not choose to be that way, so is it wrong to abuse their rights over something they have no control of?]

hm, certainly. but difference does not always mean abuse or hostility. set the rules to fit the game, so to speak, rather than trying to apply the standards of another on a new one.

first question: my answer is yes. while i do find these things disturbing (and im sure plenty of others do), the fact remains that there are no real children being truly harmed in any of these scenarios. books, on the other hand, should definitely be monitored. perhaps made available upon request, rather than sitting out on a book shelf in a store somewhere for anyone to get ideas about (including kids).

while i feel that largely the differences are keen, i believe that there are two major similarities between homophobia and the way people regard pedophilia... the first being that anyone who is homosexual will act on their desires (same as most who regard pedophilia), the second being that homosexuals are rapists due to the fact that it is less accepted than heterosexuality (same as regarding all pedophiles as child molesters). it takes an exceptionally closed/ignorant mind to entertain either of those ideas, as most definitely not all homosexuals are rapists or "out", and not all pedophiles are child molesters or even open about having their desires.

and as far as entirely fictional pornography is concerned, its no different than heterosexual, gay, bisexual, or the more grotesque/graphic industries (fake rape, BDSM, etc) in that it does not encourage those who arent already of the inclination to become a rapist/abuser. it is entirely possible for someone who watches porn their entire lives not to have run out and rape/molest anybody.
those who want encouragement, will see it everywhere. magazines, billboards, the way other people look at them, video games...anything. it doesnt matter if theres porn of it; theyll find it somewhere. theyll make a source.

but those who can and do make the most of their ability to control themselves should not be punished for crimes they have not committed or urges they may have been feeling since birth.

for the record, i dont find pedophilia to be any more acceptable than bestiality or necrophilia, but the fact remains that people do exist out there with these sexual urges...and ive never seen anything worthwhile come out of complete and utter (fear based) oppression.
ideally, they would be given a safe alternative outlet for their desires without hurting anyone or being hurt, themselves.

fear leads people to do stupid, harmful things against innocent people. i urge you all to consider that. (as well as the cases where a falsely accused person was met with abuse or harassment or even threats on their family that nobody can undo once done.)

pinketamine

16th Nov 2010, 11:12 PM

And yeah, I'm very radical about paedophiles. Be them only fantasising or actually doing it. Because from wishes to reality is just one small step.

Actually, there is usually a BIG step between wishes and reality. Most people have fantasized about violent acts (not necessarily murder or rape.. I mean a softer violence like kicking your boss' face or something like that) and never commit any of those. Many people dream about robbing a bank without any violence and get a lot of money, but most people does not do it.
I don't have any proof right here, but I personally think that most pedophiles don't commit crimes and that most of them feel ashamed of their condition. For sure, there are a lot of ways to rationalize your own "deviations", but most of the time this kind of desires crash with your conception of moral, ethics and general social rules and cause an make you feel guilty.

Willow's Tara

19th Nov 2010, 05:04 AM

EL- Noobish question but who or what is a Cockney?

As for the topic I will state here that pedophiles sicken me and I don't see how they could have such desires, but alas I have learn a long time ago that no matter what most of everything isn't black and white, while this does go closer to the black area there is a bit of gray involved. For those who actually do the act should be jailed and never allowed near any kids again. For those who have actually never done it but only had desires, I think they should get help and try to just be with an adult consenting female (Or male if they swing that way, or both if they swing that way too), of course as others stated not many are going to admit it, mostly because if you do you will have a mob with pitchforks and flaming torches at your door.

But I think privately seeking help with a professional could help them become more normal and get rid of those desires.

el_flel

19th Nov 2010, 03:04 PM

^ Wiki article on Cockneys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockney). It's basically a term to describe the working class from a particular area of London, and is usually used to refer to their accent and language, particularly associated with Cockney rhyming slang ("apples and pairs" = stairs). Element_Leaf was joking with his/her post, btw.

Deeney

23rd Nov 2010, 02:29 PM

Zero, zilch, none, nada, absolutely positively none

HystericalParoxysm

23rd Nov 2010, 02:47 PM

Deeney - Please make an attempt to actually read some of the previous posts before posting - this debate is not about people who have actually harmed children or committed any crime. It's about people who may have some lustful desires for children but have not acted on them in any way. It's also about the materials that may be involved in such a desire - stories, drawings, and so forth, but not anything like actual child pornography or anything that has harmed a real child. With -that- in mind, do you actually believe that people who have committed no crime, have harmed no real children, and are otherwise contributing members of society should have ZERO rights? That someone who has desires that you (and most people) find distasteful but are not harmful to any actual child should have no rights whatsoever? Because that is what this debate is about, and that seems an unreasonable viewpoint if you actually understand the topic we're discussing here... That, and the line between what should be legal and not in terms of those various fetish materials - drawings, stories, etc. - and as the OP brought up, controversial "manual" which was available for sale on Amazon for a time.

thetinhouse

27th Nov 2010, 07:28 AM

I dont usually bother to comment, but some of the posts in this thread amazed me. I will reply to the original post.

Firstly peodophiles have the reputation for being one of the most difficult groups of criminals to rehabilitate, because their impulse to act on their urges is so terribly strong. That is why you have so many re-offending after spending time in prison for previous crimes. To expect anyone with strong sexual urges not to act on them, 'because they know it is wrong' is extremely naive. Lots of people think its wrong to cheat on their partners, but they still do it!

Secondly, imagine being told that you can look at porn all day long, animated cartoon porn at that, and play with cute little toys but you cant ever have the real thing. I cant imagine why anyone would look at porn, if not to become aroused. So, they are expected to push down that arousal or deal with it themselves........forever!? That is ludicrous, who is going to do that?

I agree that they would never choose to be the way they are. Of course! We cannot control what thoughts or fantasies play out in someones mind, but we sure as hell can, and should be doing everything in our power to make sure it stays there!! And feeding it with cartoon porn and sex toys and literature is not going to make it go away. We are not talking about sex between consenting adults, we are talking about children!! Everyone has rights and that is the way it should be, but exploring and nurturing severely aberrant sexual behaviour, aimed at the most innocent among us, cannot EVER be a right!

I would hope that pedophiles would choose to study weather patterns in the Artic Circle, but that is not the case. All too often they are, for obvious reasons, attracted to jobs involving children, ...youth leaders, coaches, teachers.......which puts them in direct contact with societies most innocent. I cant imagine a person alive who would willingly pat their kid on the head and send him/her off to school to be taught by someone who has sexual fantasies about them, thinking "dont worry, I trust he wont act on them...he has rights after all". Please!!

Throughout this thread it has been acknowledged that pedophiles are sick, yes thats true, they are! Criminally sick. It is the most secretive crime on earth, and they are master manipulators of their vitcim, so their crime often goes on for years without anyone finding out. Putting 'legal' literature and other paraphernalia out there, is nothing more than telling them their feelings are OK. And if their feelings are OK, then why shouldnt acting on them be OK too! I cant imagine any parent accepting that! This crime devastates the life of the victim in ways we can only imagine, and manifests all through their lives.....from self-loathing and sexual dysfunction to suicide!

It is time that we stood up for the rights of the innocent and the victim, potential or otherwise, over the rights of the criminal, they are all to often forgotten.

And please, let us not become so open minded that our brains fall out completely!

ElementMK

27th Nov 2010, 09:44 AM

All too often they are, for obvious reasons, attracted to jobs involving children, ...youth leaders, coaches, teachers.......which puts them in direct contact with societies most innocent.This makes sense. After all, lesbians have no other goal than to teach yoga classes, and straight men have an insatiable drive to work at Hooters.

thetinhouse

27th Nov 2010, 10:06 AM

This makes sense. After all, lesbians have no other goal than to teach yoga classes, and straight men have an insatiable drive to work at Hooters.

What exactly is your point? Its a known fact that pedophiles are more comfortable around children and often relate to them more easily than adults. If they didnt they would never be able to manipulate and control kids the way they do. Case studies of known pedophiles show that they do choose to work around children, this fact was also confirmed by a group convicted pedophiles, who agreed to be interviewed and have studies carried out on them.

The urges or behavious of pedophiles cannot in anyway be compared to those of gay or hetrosexual people. To do that would be offensive.

whiterider

27th Nov 2010, 11:12 AM

Quite - known paedophiles. Paedophiles don't "come out"; they are revealed by being caught committing crimes. So, yes, paedophiles who abuse children will tend to want to work with or spend time around children; and similarly they will tend to be manipulative, or else they wouldn't have succeeded in luring their victim into abuse. But as has been said many times in this thread, that's not all - or even most - paedophiles; many paedophiles are, to all intents and purposes and with the exception of their sexual thoughts, as normal and unremarkable as the next person.

unalisaa

27th Nov 2010, 11:15 AM

Element Leaf, while I see your point and agree with it -- paedophiles are human --, there is one huge difference: A straight man can talk to women whenever and wherever he likes. The world seems to be full of 'em. If a paedophile has no children or doesn't know anyone with children, it would make sense that they would seek out an opportunity to interact with kids. This is not desirable, but it is understandable to some point; people tend to like to look at people they find attractive. The problem here is, if I may take the liberty to continue your Hooters analogy, that if a straight man works at hooters and makes a move on one of his colleagues, he'll ether be encouraged or turned down. Most likely, he'll listen to what the woman is saying and act thereafter. If she encouraged him, cool, if she turned him down, huh, guess there's other fish in the sea. Children are incapable of doing either because a paedophile is an adult and thus in a position of power, and, hey, it's pretty universally agreed that kids cannot legally consent to anything. The moment an adult makes a move on a child, it's abuse of authority.

I don't actually care about the attraction part. Does one, as a parent, worry about sending one's post-pubescent child to school because someone might find them attractive? Does one live in fear that somebody might have seen one's sixteen-year old son and found him cute? No, right?
The thing is, it's acting upon the attraction that's unwanted, and that acting upon is often subconscious. Children aren't able to differentiate between friendly and wink-wink-friendly, because they just don't understand that part of human nature. A post-pubescent kid can, even if they're not over the age of consent, identify it and react. If children can't, I think it's fair to say that people who are sexually attracted to them shouldn't work closely with them. It's not safe or productive for either party.

thetinhouse, I suppose your reasoning is that if hitting a pillow when you're angry just makes you angrier, then looking at porn when you're sexually frustrated just makes you more frustrated. I see what you mean. But this isn't about "relieving" or letting paedophiles self-medicate with porn to keep from real children. This is about being a human being and having the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Smoking is bad for your health. "Venting" is bad for getting rid of anger. Looking at porn when the possibility of ever doing anything of the sort is frustrating and can't be good for you. But people do those things anyway.
As long as you're not hurting anyone, your "person" card should trump your "sexual deviant" card.

Edit: Whiterider, you ninja, that is a very good point. However, I'd still be worried about the unconscious things. Signs of attraction that wouldn't even be considered harassment in a workplace could get one branded a child-molester for the rest of one's life.

thetinhouse

27th Nov 2010, 02:16 PM

Whiterider, you hit the nail on the head, pedophiles dont 'come out', so we have absolutely no way of finding out whether some of them are able to indulge in fantasy and keep it at that level. And because of the danger and hatred these people face they are not very likely to ever admit to anything either.
The frightening thing is that the majority of those who are known offenders tend to be quite adamant that the drive is so strong, that even those with intense self hatred for how they feel, will eventually offend. It concerns me that we are dealing with people whose sexual urges are not only abnormal, but are way stronger than the average sex drive. Because of the secretive nature of their crimes and the hold they have over their victims we cant be sure that they are living lives........ "to all intents and purposes and with the exception of their sexual thoughts, as normal and unremarkable as the next person". Perhaps each and everyone of them do offend but just dont always get caught. How will never be certain.

As long as you're not hurting anyone, your "person" card should trump your "sexual deviant" card.

I understand, and to be honest in a perfect world, so be it. But how, with the little info we have gathered about how deep seated this disease is, again, can we ever be sure that he/she will never at on their instincts? Why should we be willing to take that risk? We are not talking about the right to life, or shelter, or nourishment, ect, those are rights that cannot harm anyone, but surely no one can can claim something is a 'right' that has even the potential to devastate another.

Mistermook

27th Nov 2010, 03:46 PM

I understand, and to be honest in a perfect world, so be it. But how, with the little info we have gathered about how deep seated this disease is, again, can we ever be sure that he/she will never at on their instincts? Why should we be willing to take that risk? We are not talking about the right to life, or shelter, or nourishment, ect, those are rights that cannot harm anyone, but surely no one can can claim something is a 'right' that has even the potential to devastate another.
But surely I can, since we, as a society, allow for the risk of uncommonly aggressive people who probably war with their instincts about committing crimes of violence. If I can sit down at a table with someone I worry might shoot me without a set of laws declaring that shooting people is improper, then I can absolutely sit down with someone whose sexual constituency allows for an attraction to anything, even children, until they've actually committed an unlawful action too. As a society we take that risk all the time. Furthermore, I'm just going to say flat out that each and every one of us likely has dangerous predatory impulses that we could explore given the right motivation and opportunity. That's the scariest lesson to be learned about some of the experiments in human social behavior.

It is simply unacceptable to punish anyone for what they might do eventually.

Ever. No exceptions.

thetinhouse

27th Nov 2010, 05:02 PM

Well, Mistermook, I guess you could sit down with someone who fantasised about raping children and no doubt you would be as safe as houses! They dont give a rats ass about you, hon! Dont let your kid sit down with him/her though!
If someone shoots you the whole world knows about it! You are dead....and shot. If a child is raped it sometimes never comes out into the open, well except for the one case of a girl I went to school with, it came out at the age of 17 ......in her suicide note! She considered herself dirty right into her soul, that no self respecting man could ever love her when she was 'used goods'. No amount of love or therapy could change her mind!
Do you not realise that some of these children would rather be dead, than live with what has happened to them? And you talk about the pedophiles rights! If I sound emotional its because I am. How can you have a compassionate bone in your body and not understand the devastation these victims feel. Over what? Can you guarentee that it will stop at fantasy?

Furthermore, I'm just going to say flat out that each and every one of us likely has dangerous predatory impulses that we could explore given the right motivation and opportunity. That's the scariest lesson to be learned about some of the experiments in human social behavior.
I say this with all due respect. Crap, please speak for yourself!

It is simply unacceptable to punish anyone for what they might do eventually.
Ever. No exceptions.

Oh? And refusing to allow them legal cartoon porn and child sized sex dollies is punishing them? Gimme a break. Why on earth would they look at that, when they already have tons and tons of the real stuff at the click of a mouse!?

Oaktree

27th Nov 2010, 06:15 PM

The frightening thing is that the majority of those who are known offenders tend to be quite adamant that the drive is so strong, that even those with intense self hatred for how they feel, will eventually offend. It concerns me that we are dealing with people whose sexual urges are not only abnormal, but are way stronger than the average sex drive.

How can you make that generalization about all pedophiles based solely on those who act on their urges? Those who act on their urges would presumably be those with harder-to-control urges, while those who don't would be more able to control them. The only intrinsic difference between pedophiles and other people is that pedophiles are attracted to children. There is no difference in sex drive or any other biological/neurological factor.

I understand, and to be honest in a perfect world, so be it. But how, with the little info we have gathered about how deep seated this disease is, again, can we ever be sure that he/she will never at on their instincts? Why should we be willing to take that risk? We are not talking about the right to life, or shelter, or nourishment, ect, those are rights that cannot harm anyone, but surely no one can can claim something is a 'right' that has even the potential to devastate another.

You can't tell me that every aspect of who you are is perfectly good and sweet to the core. Everyone has their flaws. Biologically, we have been bred to be aggressive. It is what helped us survive before we became civilized. That is still inside of each of us. Simply by interacting with other people, you are risking that someone else may succumb to their bad side on any given day. It's something that we keep well under control under normal circumstances, but that can be released. Further, life is suffused with risk. There is no such thing as perfect safety. It is ridiculous to take away rights to try to eliminate all risk because it isn't possible.

Do you not realise that some of these children would rather be dead, than live with what has happened to them? And you talk about the pedophiles rights! If I sound emotional its because I am. How can you have a compassionate bone in your body and not understand the devastation these victims feel. Over what? Can you guarentee that it will stop at fantasy?

Not all pedophiles act on their urges, though. When they don't act on their urges, to persecute them anyway means that the only victims are the pedophiles. They're still people. Are you really willing to hurt innocent people simply because they could do something wrong? Because if you apply that standard to everyone, you would have to restrict the freedoms of every single person.

Oh? And refusing to allow them legal cartoon porn and child sized sex dollies is punishing them? Gimme a break. Why on earth would they look at that, when they already have tons and tons of the real stuff at the click of a mouse!?

The real stuff is illegal and extremely immoral. Some pedophiles don't want the urges they have and try to contain it without hurting real children. Watching child porn is encouraging the business of making it, which is hurting children. Cartoon porn can be used to satisfy those urges without actually hurting someone.

wickedblue

27th Nov 2010, 09:52 PM

Except that, it does hurt children.

And why are so many so concerned with making sure that they have a sexual outlet? Are we so concerned that they are allowed to ejaculate that we would allow for them to have materials that would aid in that, even though those materials are harmful?

I stand by what I said earlier. Pedophiles should have a safe place to discuss their desires so they can get help, what they do not need is a sexual outlet.

Oaktree

27th Nov 2010, 09:56 PM

Except that, it does hurt children.

How?

And why are so many so concerned with making sure that they have a sexual outlet? Are we so concerned that they are allowed to ejaculate that we would allow for them to have materials that would aid in that, even though those materials are harmful?

I stand by what I said earlier. Pedophiles should have a safe place to discuss their desires so they can get help, what they do not need is a sexual outlet.

I think that they should get therapy, but sexual repression tends to screw people up, so having an outlet may be necessary in some cases. Further, while I think they should get therapy, I don't think they can be forced into therapy unless they actually harm a child. If they commit a crime, they lose a lot of their rights to personal choices, but it's absolutely ridiculous to charge someone with thoughtcrime and take away their rights on that basis.

wickedblue

27th Nov 2010, 10:01 PM

I agree that it would be ridiculous to take away the rights of a person who has not committed a crime. Nothing I have said has suggested that I think that would be the solution.

RoseCity

27th Nov 2010, 10:42 PM

Well, Mistermook, I guess you could sit down with someone who fantasised about raping children and no doubt you would be as safe as houses! They dont give a rats ass about you, hon! Dont let your kid sit down with him/her though!
If someone shoots you the whole world knows about it! You are dead....and shot. If a child is raped it sometimes never comes out into the open, well except for the one case of a girl I went to school with, it came out at the age of 17 ......in her suicide note! She considered herself dirty right into her soul, that no self respecting man could ever love her when she was 'used goods'. No amount of love or therapy could change her mind!

I think I would agree with Mistermook - if you haven't done anything wrong except think 'bad' thoughts, then you haven't done anything wrong. When you do do something wrong i.e. have sex with a child or fill your hard drive up with child pornography, then you've committed a crime and hopefully law enforcement will deal with you.
I was molested as a child by a family member. A good friend of mine was molested by a trusted neighbor. As an adult I've met a few other people who were molested by family members or trusted friends and authority figures. No one suspected at the time that these nice guys would do something like that and I don't think they'd be labelled as pedophiles. My point (and maybe it's not a good one) in bringing this up is that your child is probably in more danger from a family member than some random pedophile.
Should everyone who molests a child be castrated? There would be a helluva lot of castrations.

socherish

28th Nov 2010, 12:43 AM

Should everyone who molests a child be castrated? There would be a helluva lot of castrations.

Why not? I would say yes, if i thought that would help.
But if they can't use that, they'll use their hands. If they can't use that, they'll use their mouth. If they can't use that, they'll show the kid something disgusting or make the child undress or something. Castration will not stop them. What society needs to do is figure out what's causing them to be pedos and fix it. There was a man that had dreams about molesting little kids, so he committed suicide because they were becoming more intense and he caught himself planning ways to fulfill his fantasies. So what made him want to do that in the first place? Is it something in someone's brain? Why aren't they trying harder to figure out what causes it and stop it?

AND they need to stop letting 1st time offenders out of prison. A man in my neighborhood raped his friend's little sister when he was 20. He got out, started dating my friends mother (who didn't know he was a rapist and never checked him out), and raped my friend. She was 8. I don't know how this is possible, but she got PREGNANT. She had already her period and everything, but it honestly never occurred to me that an 8 year old could get pregnant. She had to get an abortion. If they hadn't let him out of jail, it would've never happened. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure in NY law it is impossible for rape to get a life sentence. WHY?

wickedblue

28th Nov 2010, 03:10 AM

A lot of abusers were abused as children. It's really a nasty cycle of abuse that can sometimes go for generations. So, there's that.

And no, castration won't solve the issue. There's a lot more involved in the sexual abuse of a child than penetrative sex. In some cases, penetration never occurs but the trauma remains for the child. Also, that suggestion assumes that all perpetrators are male which is not the case.

pinketamine

28th Nov 2010, 04:08 AM

If a child is raped it sometimes never comes out into the open, well except for the one case of a girl I went to school with, it came out at the age of 17 ......in her suicide note! She considered herself dirty right into her soul, that no self respecting man could ever love her when she was 'used goods'. No amount of love or therapy could change her mind!
Do you not realise that some of these children would rather be dead, than live with what has happened to them? And you talk about the pedophiles rights! If I sound emotional its because I am. How can you have a compassionate bone in your body and not understand the devastation these victims feel. Over what? Can you guarentee that it will stop at fantasy?

I don't get what is your point here, as I don't think there is any relationship between allowing people who haven't committed any crime to have a life as normal as possible and not understanding the victims.
I understand the victims of rape, but I also think that trying to punish things that haven't happened at all does not make sense.

You said before that pedophiles can't control their desires, and that does not make sense to me either. It reminds me to those men who think that all gay men will rape them. Most people control their sexual desire, no matter their orientations.
Yeah, I find pedophilia disgusting as hell, but pedophiles are human beings too, so they should have the same rights that any other innocent person.

thetinhouse

28th Nov 2010, 07:05 AM

I apologise for my long post, but there are many points I wished to address :)
You can't tell me that every aspect of who you are is perfectly good and sweet to the core.
Hell no! But I do not consider myself as 'predatory' as Mistermook suggested everyone is.
Not all pedophiles act on their urges, though.
On what documented studies do you base this? To my knowledge the only facts we have are from 'known' pedophiles.

The real stuff is illegal and extremely immoral. Some pedophiles don't want the urges they have and try to contain it without hurting real children. Watching child porn is encouraging the business of making it, which is hurting children. Cartoon porn can be used to satisfy those urges without actually hurting someone. I understand that, but how many people do you know who enjoy porn would be satisfied with watching only cartoon porn? It simply wont work.
We are not talking about denying anyones fundamental rights here, the rights that everyone has. The basis of my argument is that if we legalise child cartoon porn we are sending a message to pedophiles that their urges and desires are OK. "Look, we are even encouraging your thoughts". They are NOT and can never be. Almost everyone in this thread has admitted that pedophiles are ill and need help, so why then do we legalise something that would encourage their thoughts and perhaps eventually behaviour? Nothing about pedophilia should be condoned ever! Surely we should be thinking of ways to discourage and perhaps manage their desires in a non-reinforcing manner?
You said before that pedophiles can't control their desires, and that does not make sense to me either. I said that documented studies show that 'pedophiles can't control their desires', pedophiles in a number of studies have admitted to that, I am simply stating facts from studies I have read.
It reminds me to those men who think that all gay men will rape them.
Well, there is all kind of stupid in the world! Not much we can do about that, unfortunately.
Most people control their sexual desire, no matter their orientations. You consider pedophilia a 'sexual orientation' ? Like being gay? It is surely a sexual 'aberration', it deviates from the norm.
Yeah, I find pedophilia disgusting as hell, but pedophiles are human beings too, so they should have the same rights that any other innocent person. I dont exactly get what rights you are fighting for. Are you referring soley to the right to legally own cute cartoon porn and small blow up dollies? Because no one here is denying them any of the other basic rights that all enjoy. How many 'innocent' pedophiles do you know? The truth of the matter is that they are so secretive about what they are thinking/doing that its impossible to know anything about them at all. We do, however, know what those who have been caught admit to, and that is, that the urge to offend is incredibly strong and so is the desire to re-offend. These people suffer in prision, that too is a well known fact, so if their urges are as controllable as the next guy then why would they risk putting themselves in harms way again?
I think that they should get therapy, but sexual repression tends to screw people up, so having an outlet may be necessary in some cases. You dont consider the desire to rape a child being 'screwed up' already? So by not being able to look at cartoon porn, sorry, only legal cartoon porn, they wont have an outlet.......and thereby they will become screwed up?
Further, while I think they should get therapy, I don't think they can be forced into therapy unless they actually harm a child. Isnt that the case already? I have never heard of anyone being forced into therapy..........for no reason?? If they are controlling their urges sucessfully then why admit anything......and why come forward if not to seek therapy?
If they commit a crime, they lose a lot of their rights to personal choices, but it's absolutely ridiculous to charge someone with thoughtcrime and take away their rights on that basis. How on earth would you be able to charge someone with 'thoughtcrime'? Is there even such a thing? How could you ever know someone is committing a 'thoughtcrime'.......mind reader cops? We are not talking about thoughts, we are talking about the legalising of cartoon porn. Its impossible to control what goes on in peoples minds, and surely a vivid sexual fantasy would beat a cartoon pic everytime?

unalisaa

28th Nov 2010, 07:19 AM

You dont consider the desire to rape a child being 'screwed up' already? So by not being able to look at cartoon porn, sorry, only legal cartoon porn, they wont have an outlet.......and thereby they will become screwed up?
Wanting to rape anyone is screwed up, but you are confusing the desire to have sexual relations with a child with the desire to harm a child. In reality, the two are inseparable, but as it exists inside the head of paedophiles, they are not born with a desire to molest and hurt children. You seem to believe that being turned on by something automatically overrides your moral compass. This is simply not true. I could name dozens of fetishes that are both immoral and/or impossible to carry out in real life, and people manage to function as normal members of society anyway.
A normal person who happens to be a paedophile would probably prefer legal cartoon porn to actual live-action kid porn. Why? Because normal people don't like knowing that they are indirectly scarring children for life.
What normal people do like, however, is the freedom to do whatever they want while respecting the same right of others. And legal cartoon porn hurts no one.

Chemical castration or other suppressants of sex drive are effective, but we cannot go and force innocent people to do that because they "might commit a crime someday".

thetinhouse

28th Nov 2010, 07:50 AM

I am in no way interested or concerned with the sexual behaviour of adults. We are not discussing rape in general either, we are discussing the legal reinforcement of potentially dangerous behaviour involving children.

A normal person who happens to be a paedophile would probably prefer legal cartoon porn to actual live-action kid porn. Why? Because normal people don't like knowing that they are indirectly scarring children for life. Yet the majority of pedophiles are found with real child porn and not exclusively cartoon porn. Strange isnt it? In fact people who have not committed any acts against children, (which must mean they are controlling their urges?) are sometimes caught because they have real kiddie porn, not cartoon porn! Even more strange! Can we then assume that they perhaps simply prefer the real thing :(

What normal people do like, however, is the freedom to do whatever they want while respecting the same right of others. And legal cartoon porn hurts no one. You see that is where we differ, I do not see sexual desire towards children as 'normal', regardless of whether or not it is acted upon. And it frightens me that some do.

Chemical castration or other suppressants of sex drive are effective, but we cannot go and force innocent people to do that because they "might commit a crime someday". Why on earth would you do that to someone who is innocent? How would you know that someone was a potential criminal anyway? The dont run around screaming 'watch out Im a axe murderer'!! That is not the argument here. I will say it again! It is simply the question of whether it is right to legalise something that would reinforce potentially dangerous behaviour towards children. :blink:

Has no one heard of 'prevention is better than cure'?

unalisaa

28th Nov 2010, 08:25 AM

You see that is where we differ, I do not see sexual desire towards children as 'normal', regardless of whether or not it is acted upon. And it frightens me that some do.
Whether or not something is normal is not a matter of opinion, but something that actually has to be backed up with evidence. No, sexual desire towards children is not normal. But a person's sexual tendencies does not define them. Paedophiles can be normal or not normal in every other regard but that, but it doesn't matter. If they have not committed a crime or an immoral act, they are not criminals. They are not non-persons. They are people, and people all have the same rights to freedom.
If we have to go with what frightens us, then yeah, I'm pretty frightened that some people believe that sexual desires one has no control over is grounds on which it is alright to rob another of their personhood. But no one cares what frightens me, and it's not relevant.

Why on earth would you do that to someone who is innocent? How would you know that someone was a potential criminal anyway? The dont run around screaming 'watch out Im a axe murderer'!! That is not the argument here. I will say it again! It is simply the question of whether it is right to legalise something that would reinforce potentially dangerous behaviour towards children. :blink:
What are you thoughts on torture porn? The Anarchist's cookbook?

Has no one heard of 'prevention is better than cure'?
Yes, but not when that prevention intrudes upon the rights or privacy of the individual. No one is talking about government-provided kiddie porn, here. We're talking about not prosecuting people who haven't harmed another human being. It's none of my business what people watch to get off. Only the moment they did anything to hurt anyone does it become my business.
The adage you speak of works for illness, not for governing. Otherwise, let's arrest those 30-34% of American adults who are in possession of a firearm. What if they suddenly decided to shoot someone? Let's arrest everyone who has a pair of stiletto-shoes in their closet. What if they stepped on a kitten and killed it? Hell, let's arrest every single sexual adult on the planet. What if they one day feel attracted to someone they're not in a relationship with, have a sexual fantasy about them (non-consensual!!!), and subsequently harass them?
Do you see where I'm going with this? Prosecuting (or persecuting, for that matter) people for something they might do is a very slippery slope.

Oaktree

28th Nov 2010, 09:08 AM

On what documented studies do you base this? To my knowledge the only facts we have are from 'known' pedophiles.

There is a genre with a degree of popularity in Japan called "Lolicon". It is about relationships between men and underage girls. There are people who enjoy this sort of thing without actually having relations with underage girls.

I understand that, but how many people do you know who enjoy porn would be satisfied with watching only cartoon porn? It simply wont work.

It isn't a direct analogy, but I'll give you a personal example: I don't watch porn, but I'll read adult books and short stories. I'm satisfied with reading about sex and have no desire to actually watch it. I'm sure I'm not the only person like this.

We are not talking about denying anyones fundamental rights here, the rights that everyone has. The basis of my argument is that if we legalise child cartoon porn we are sending a message to pedophiles that their urges and desires are OK. "Look, we are even encouraging your thoughts". They are NOT and can never be. Almost everyone in this thread has admitted that pedophiles are ill and need help, so why then do we legalise something that would encourage their thoughts and perhaps eventually behaviour? Nothing about pedophilia should be condoned ever! Surely we should be thinking of ways to discourage and perhaps manage their desires in a non-reinforcing manner?
I said that documented studies show that 'pedophiles can't control their desires', pedophiles in a number of studies have admitted to that, I am simply stating facts from studies I have read.

You phrase your argument as if the government has to weigh in on everything we do before we do it. You say that to not make it illegal is to condone it, when really it simply means that the government does not condemn it. The government does not and should not have such a degree of control over everyday life that it must be consulted on every decision. It is simply a regulatory body that tells us what we can't do and ignores the things we choose to do that aren't prohibited. Further, though I am not absolutely sure, I don't think that cartoon child porn is currently illegal. It may be illegal in selective areas, particularly the few areas that look down on all pornography, but I think that it is legal for people to, say, buy Lolicon manga in most areas.

You dont consider the desire to rape a child being 'screwed up' already? So by not being able to look at cartoon porn, sorry, only legal cartoon porn, they wont have an outlet.......and thereby they will become screwed up?

There are varying degrees of "screwed up". I'm concerned that sexual repression may lead to a more violent kind of "screwed up" than entertaining screwed up thoughts.

Isnt that the case already? I have never heard of anyone being forced into therapy..........for no reason?? If they are controlling their urges sucessfully then why admit anything......and why come forward if not to seek therapy?

If a person had urges toward children and found those urges repulsive, they might come forward to get help in order to rid him/herself of them. Controlling one's urges successfully does not necessarily equate to happiness and comfort with oneself.

How on earth would you be able to charge someone with 'thoughtcrime'? Is there even such a thing? How could you ever know someone is committing a 'thoughtcrime'.......mind reader cops? We are not talking about thoughts, we are talking about the legalising of cartoon porn. Its impossible to control what goes on in peoples minds, and surely a vivid sexual fantasy would beat a cartoon pic everytime?

If a person comes forward to get therapy for his/her pedophillic thoughts, that person should not be persecuted. If a person enjoys cartoon child porn without acting out those urges with a real child, there is no reason to restrict him/her from having that porn. If you think that watching that sort of porn is too much of a risk factor to be legal, then do you think we should restrict all violent media to prevent people from deriving enjoyment from a movie or game that depicts murder? Should we cut out every illegal action from media depiction in order to prevent people from acting out the things they watch? The majority of people are capable of separating their fantasies from their actions. How is it any different with pedophiles?

thetinhouse

28th Nov 2010, 09:23 AM

Whether or not something is normal is not a matter of opinion, but something that actually has to be backed up with evidence. No, sexual desire towards children is not normal. But a person's sexual tendencies does not define them. Paedophiles can be normal or not normal in every other regard but that, but it doesn't matter. If they have not committed a crime or an immoral act, they are not criminals. They are not non-persons. They are people, and people all have the same rights to freedom. I dont fully understand what 'freedom' you are referring to. The freedom to look at legal animated kiddie porn? I havent said lock them up, I havent said castrate them, I have simply said dont condone their behaviour by legalising cartoon porn.

If we have to go with what frightens us, then yeah, I'm pretty frightened that some people believe that sexual desires one has no control over is grounds on which it is alright to rob another of their personhood. Oh! so now they dont have control over their desires? How can not giving them something they dont have possibly be robbing them of their personhood?

What are you thoughts on torture porn? The Anarchist's cookbook? And the relevance of this question is?

Yes, but not when that prevention intrudes upon the rights or privacy of the individual. No one is talking about government-provided kiddie porn, here. We're talking about not prosecuting people who haven't harmed another human being. Oh my word!! When did I say that? My entire argument has been about the legalising of cartoon porn!! I have never talked about prosecuting anyone.

The adage you speak of works for illness, not for governing. Otherwise, let's arrest those 30-34% of American adults who are in possession of a firearm. What if they suddenly decided to shoot someone? Let's arrest everyone who has a pair of stiletto-shoes in their closet. What if they stepped on a kitten and killed it? Hell, let's arrest every single sexual adult on the planet. What if they one day feel attracted to someone they're not in a relationship with, have a sexual fantasy about them (non-consensual!!!), and subsequently harass them?
Do you see where I'm going with this? Prosecuting (or persecuting, for that matter) people for something they might do is a very slippery slope.
With all due respect....I have no cooking clue what the heck you are talking about? In fact I can't even follow your reasoning, you have thrown in a bunch of dramatic and irevelant comparisons that dont make sense.

Let me see if I have this straight? By not giving (legalising) them (pedophiles) something they dont have (animated cartoon porn) we (society in general) are going to completely loose our minds and stamp all over everyones rights? :lol:

To my knowledge owning a fire arm, stillettos, fantasising, and sexual attraction is not breaking the law, but the owning of kiddie porn, animated or not is.........wonder why the powers that be did that? Could it possibly be that they see the protection of children, from even potential danger, as of the utmost importance? Even more important than......say.... the right to look at pretend kids being raped? *tsk *tsk Whatever could they be thinking?

unalisaa

28th Nov 2010, 09:51 AM

Oh! so now they dont have control over their desires? How can not giving them something they dont have possibly be robbing them of their personhood?
I see how my phrasing must have been unclear. I meant "did not have control over" in the sense that no one chooses to be a paedophile.

And the relevance of this question is?
Both examples "encourage" illegal behaviour but are perfectly legal to own and distribute. I'd like to hear your opinion on why these are legal and whether you extend your principles on animated child pornography to other seemingly immoral forms of media.

Let me see if I have this straight? By not giving (legalising) them (pedophiles) something they dont have (animated cartoon porn) we (society in general) are going to completely loose our minds and stamp all over everyones rights? :lol:
Yes.

I am, however, severely disinclined to continue this argument. What's with the patronisation? I am many things, but I am being neither stupid nor unreasonable. This condescension is misplaced both in context and venue.

Lance

28th Nov 2010, 09:55 AM

I do not want to interfere with all your argues, I just want to note that desire to have sex with children and desire to rape children seems to be different.
Those who want to have sex with children understand that their desire is impossible, since children are not able to really commit sexual act.
Those who want to rape children do not differ from any other kind of rapists. There is no real psychological difference between wanting to rape mature women with long black hair and wanting to rape children. That is raping thoughts what is primary, age or hair color is just a preference.
Both kinds of phedophiles may be dangerous if they have mental predisposition for obsessive thoughts. Thus, those who just want to have "real" sex with children, can start autosuggesting that children would not take any harm from it or even that children would actually enjoy the act.
So the conclusion is: phedophilia is just a thought and do not cause any harm by itself. But it can become dangerous if the person has a mental misfunction. You must understand though that such a misfunction would show itself even if the person is not pedophile. It is just that children considered more easily harmed, but real threat is the same.
PS I must add, the real cause of pedophilia (since not everyone understand it) is that the person's sexual behavior do not age properly, i.e. the person still have unconscious sexual behavior such as it was when the person was a child. There was an abuse or any other shock or just very strong impression and from that moment the person's sexual behavior never change fully. So basically, when it goes to sexual behavior, pedophiles are children with sex desires.
And that is why pedophiles are so great when it goes to socializing with children - they are partially children themselves.
Sorry for my poor english. I just wanted to explain some things so you might understand the problem better. (My knowledge goes from my brother who is psychiatrist).

unalisaa

28th Nov 2010, 09:59 AM

Hey, Lance, thanks for interfering with our argues d:
The part about what causes paedophilia is pretty interesting. Do you have any Internet sources one might take a look at?

Your English seems pretty good to me, by the way.

thetinhouse

28th Nov 2010, 10:21 AM

@ Oaktree

There are people who enjoy this sort of thing without actually having relations with underage girls.
Really? I still wouldn't let them babysit any kid of mine!

I don't watch porn, but I'll read adult books and short stories. I'm satisfied with reading about sex and have no desire to actually watch it. I'm sure I'm not the only person like this.
OK, but I daresay that you are able to satisfy any sexual urges within the law?

You phrase your argument as if the government has to weigh in on everything we do before we do it. You say that to not make it illegal is to condone it, when really it simply means that the government does not condemn it. The government does not and should not have such a degree of control over everyday life that it must be consulted on every decision. Is not one of the functions of government to protect those who cannot protect themselves? To put laws in place that coul prevent even the possibility of someone being hurt? Like no guns at school? No discharging of a firearm outside of a certain restricted areas?

It is simply a regulatory body that tells us what we can't do and ignores the things we choose to do that aren't prohibited. But pedophilia is prohibited, and where I live not even adult shops sell animated kiddie porn.

Further, though I am not absolutely sure, I don't think that cartoon child porn is currently illegal. It may be illegal in selective areas, particularly the few areas that look down on all pornography, but I think that it is legal for people to, say, buy Lolicon manga in most areas. Oh dear :( Then this debate thread is moot.

If a person comes forward to get therapy for his/her pedophillic thoughts, that person should not be persecuted. Well if he/she hadnt acted on it and sought help, they certainly wouldnt be prosecuted where I live. I dont know on what charges they could be charged. That would be a case of 'thoughtcrime'.

If a person enjoys cartoon child porn without acting out those urges with a real child, there is no reason to restrict him/her from having that porn. If you think that watching that sort of porn is too much of a risk factor to be legal, then do you think we should restrict all violent media to prevent people from deriving enjoyment from a movie or game that depicts murder? Should we cut out every illegal action from media depiction in order to prevent people from acting out the things they watch?Well to be honest there are quite a few debates around that subject too. :) But answer one question for me, please. Would you be comfortable to watch the graphic molestation/rape of a minor child in an animated movie or a game? Why is this particular crime (pedophilia) never shown (grachically) in mainstream movies or games etc? Even if the actor is of age? Because it crosses a line no one is prepared to cross.

The majority of people are capable of separating their fantasies from their actions. How is it any different with pedophiles?
And what about the minority? Are you prepared to take that chance.

@ unalissa
I am, however, severely disinclined to continue this argument. What's with the patronisation? I am many things, but I am being neither stupid nor unreasonable. This condescension is misplaced both in context and venue.
I apologise. It was in response to what I perceived as sacasm and irritation in your post.

And in response to your explaination on torture porn and the other thing, I have no interest in peoples morality, as I said before I dont give a rats ass. My only concern is the safety of our children.
Yes.
So, then all laws are wrong, restictive and infringe on everyones right to do whatever they like to whomever they like, whenever they like. Heaven help us all!

Am I the only one, except for a few post earlier on, who place the rights of children above those of pedophiles? If so, I guess the debate has reached its sad (and distrubing) conclusion for me.

Lance

28th Nov 2010, 10:48 AM

That was my brother who made the research, and since I am not specialist in those areas, I am not really familiar with the sources.
There is, of course, other psychiatry theories, but I personally trust in this one.
And you must know the difference between "popular science" explanations and real psychiatry. The problem is quite politisized now, and hence there is no trust in common articles on web or TV or whatever else. If you really want to know, go for serious science books.

Lance

28th Nov 2010, 11:06 AM

PS I must add, the real cause of pedophilia (since not everyone understand it) is that the person's sexual behavior do not age properly, i.e. the person still have unconscious sexual behavior such as it was when the person was a child. There was an abuse or any other shock or just very strong impression and from that moment the person's sexual behavior never change fully. So basically, when it goes to sexual behavior, pedophiles are children with sex desires.
There is something else I might add. This psychological mechanism works not only for children, such a thing can happen with everyone. Especially teens, especially during first sexual experience. There is pretty many people who turned on by 14 years old girls, and that is why.

el_flel

28th Nov 2010, 11:18 AM

But if they can't use that, they'll use their hands. If they can't use that, they'll use their mouth.Not quite. Traditional castration is the removal of the testes and chemical castration affects hormone levels; the patient still has their penis. But the point of doing it is that it rids the person of sexual desires altogether, so there's little chance that they'd use any part of their body for anything sexual.

Another point: there won't be any one cause of paedophilia - when it comes to psychological disorders when is there ever one cause?! New research into brain structure has found some interesting results.

Lance

28th Nov 2010, 11:43 AM

Another point: there won't be any one cause of paedophilia - when it comes to psychological disorders when is there ever one cause?! New research into brain structure has found some interesting results.
Whether it goes to laws of gravity or psychology, there is always one main cause. But sometimes to trigger that cause you need great many circumstances to come along. And those circumstances is causes too, in a way.

el_flel

28th Nov 2010, 12:14 PM

I can only assume that when you talk about everything having one main cause that you mean some things have to be taken back to the very basics, because the human mind is too complex and there are too many factors involved for every single person to have the same cause for their problems. With depression, for example, you have many different causes, both biological and psychological. If you reduce those down and take it back to basics then the common element is an abnormality somewhere in the brain - but that doesn't tell us much, which is why we have multiple theories.

unalisaa

28th Nov 2010, 01:35 PM

And in response to your explaination on torture porn and the other thing, I have no interest in peoples morality, as I said before I dont give a rats ass. My only concern is the safety of our children.

But, seeing as I am a voice in the wilderness, and seemingly the only one, except for a few post earlier on, who place the rights of children above those of pedophiles, I guess the debate has reached its sad conclusion for me.

I totally get wanting to protect children, and I agree. Child molestation is a horrible crime. I just don't think that porn encourages people to do something. I don't think watching ethically produced child pornography is going to make more paedophiles molest children.V On the contrary, I think that by making ethically produced porn an option, we'll see a decline in the number of kids forced into making pornography. Thus, we can reach the conclusion (and I'm not going to say agree on disagreeing, because that's a sucky thing to say) that we both think kids should be protected, but that "protecting children" mean different things depending on who you ask.
So, then all laws are wrong, restictive and infringe on everyones right to do whatever they like to whomever they like, whenever they like. Heaven help us all!
No, laws which infringe on people's rights are wrong. There's a difference. Again, it's the "what does hurt children" debate.

pinketamine

28th Nov 2010, 04:21 PM

You only know about pedophiles from those of them who have committed a crime... (I guess that is what "known pedophiles" means) so you don't have complete information about the problem. As I said on previous posts, many people have criminal and violent desires and never take them to reality so, to have a complete view about pedophilia, you should know how is it for those who NEVER commit a crime.

I said that documented studies show that 'pedophiles can't control their desires', pedophiles in a number of studies have admitted to that, I am simply stating facts from studies I have read.
If these studies are based in the "known pedophiles", they are still incomplete, and would show similar results in other kind of criminals maybe. There are always people who can't control themselves and do horrible things, but generalizations don't give a realistic view of problems. You could argue that all heterosexual men are potential rapists, because they have sexual desires directed to women, but most men would never rape a woman, and they will calm their sexual urges in a non violent way.

You consider pedophilia a 'sexual orientation' ? Like being gay? It is surely a sexual 'aberration', it deviates from the norm.
As I said some posts ago, I think that pedophilia is a paraphilia, a sexual behavior deviation and should be treated as any other psychological problem; I used the word orientation because desires are not criminal, and orientation seemed a neutral word for me.[/quote]

I dont exactly get what rights you are fighting for. Are you referring soley to the right to legally own cute cartoon porn and small blow up dollies? Because no one here is denying them any of the other basic rights that all enjoy.
There are people who fantasize about rape, and they have their LEGAL porn picturing rape. As the persons who make this films are consenting adults, real porn (with real people) picturing rape is legal, as is cartoon porn. Of course you CAN'T make real porn about pedophilia, but cartoons are simply cartoons, and I don't think they'll cause any harm.
As I previously said, I'm not sure of it, so I don't defend it. I don't like porn in general, and porn picturing disgusting things like torture, rape, etc. even less.
Anyway no, I was not talking about their right to have sexual toys or cartoon porn. I was talking about their right to have a normal life.

How many 'innocent' pedophiles do you know? The truth of the matter is that they are so secretive about what they are thinking/doing that its impossible to know anything about them at all. We do, however, know what those who have been caught admit to, and that is, that the urge to offend is incredibly strong and so is the desire to re-offend.
I don't know any. Maybe I know a pedophile, but I don't know he/she is one, BUT this does not mean that all of them are criminals. Most of them don't confess it because they risk to literally lose their lives, to be killed by someone who thinks that all pedophiles are rapists who can't control themselves at all so they don't have other chance than raping children.
If we stopped criminalizing innocent people who does not have any fault of their own desires, and offered them psychological help to help them controlling their urges in a non harmful way, maybe more pedophiles would admit it.

You dont consider the desire to rape a child being 'screwed up' already?
I consider the desire to rape ANYONE totally screwed up. Pedophiles feel sexual attracted to children. There is a big difference between feeling attracted to children and wanting to rape them; as there is a difference between feeling attracted to women and wanting to rape them. Rape involves violence, attraction does not implicitly involve violence. One can feel attracted to children and never in their entire life cause any direct or indirect (child porn) harm to any of them.

Oaktree

28th Nov 2010, 10:24 PM

Really? I still wouldn't let them babysit any kid of mine!

You don't have to, but it doesn't mean that their freedoms should be restricted. If they do their own thing without harming your kids, or any other kids, why can't they be left alone?

OK, but I daresay that you are able to satisfy any sexual urges within the law?

If you're asking whether I partake in the paraphilia being discussed in this thread, my answer is emphatically no! It would be more pertinent to the conversation to ask whether I am satisfied with reading about sex without having it, and the answer is yes.

Is not one of the functions of government to protect those who cannot protect themselves? To put laws in place that coul prevent even the possibility of someone being hurt? Like no guns at school? No discharging of a firearm outside of a certain restricted areas?

Are those actions really comparable to someone watching cartoon child porn, though? Do you really think that it is equally as dangerous to fire a weapon around people as it is to watch cartoon porn? I would say it is not. One has a very high likelihood of causing harm, while the other has a low likelihood of harm, and might possibly lower the likelihood of harm.

Further, while government attempts to protect its citizens, there is only a certain level of protection that can be offered before it begins to infringe too deeply on rights. The government can realistically prohibit behaviors that are directly harmful, but to prohibit behaviors that might be harmful would prohibit quite a lot of everyday behaviors. Driving can be harmful, but it is not prohibited. Sports can be harmful, but they are not prohibited. The point I'm trying to get across is that most behaviors have some level of danger in them, to oneself or to others, but it only makes sense to prohibit those things that are directly wrong or have an especially high likelihood of danger. Anything beyond that is simply too restrictive.

Look, I have no love for pedophiles or pedophilia, but I deeply resent the idea of restricting freedoms when there is no direct harm in allowing something. The government should use a universally applicable logic when determining which behaviors to restrict and I think that restricting cartoon kiddie porn requires an argument that could easily lead to the restriction of other harmless behaviors.

But pedophilia is prohibited, and where I live not even adult shops sell animated kiddie porn.

Pedophilia is prohibited, but that doesn't mean that media depiction of it must be. I used the example of murder above as to something that is illegal but not illegal to depict.

Oh dear :( Then this debate thread is moot.

Not necessarily. Laws can change and this thread is about providing logical arguments for one position or another. It is still worthwhile to have the debate.

Well if he/she hadnt acted on it and sought help, they certainly wouldnt be prosecuted where I live. I dont know on what charges they could be charged. That would be a case of 'thoughtcrime'.

It isn't just a matter of charges, though. I'm sure there are people out there who would say that someone like that should be restricted from living in certain areas, or from buying certain things. I don't think this should be so. I could understand preventing a person like that from working with children because one generally needs to have a clean psychiatric record to work at a school or other institution with children, but I don't think that the person should otherwise be cast out of society.

Well to be honest there are quite a few debates around that subject too. :) But answer one question for me, please. Would you be comfortable to watch the graphic molestation/rape of a minor child in an animated movie or a game? Why is this particular crime (pedophilia) never shown (grachically) in mainstream movies or games etc? Even if the actor is of age? Because it crosses a line no one is prepared to cross.

No, I would not want to watch that. But neither would I want to watch BDSM, furry, lesbian, or a variety of other kinds of porn. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. It just means that it's a niche market, so it isn't profitable to show it in mainstream media.

And what about the minority? Are you prepared to take that chance.

There is always a minority of people who pose risks. To try to prevent those people from causing harm usually requires steps that are far too restrictive towards the majority, who are harmless. We can't live in a completely safe society. There will always be a degree of risk. The only thing to be done is for individuals to be cautious and responsible about their actions, in order to try to prevent harm to themselves.

unalisaa

29th Nov 2010, 04:32 PM

So for anyone who'd find it interesting, I did some cutting and uploading, and here's (http://s422.photobucket.com/albums/pp308/TsarinaDott/?action=view&current=Interviewwithapedo.mp4) part of the interview I mentioned earlier in the thread. It cuts off kind of abruptly due to photobucket's upload limits, but it's pretty informative. Some guy calls and asks for advice on what to do if you're a paedo but don't want to harm children.

Greyhound_Girl07

24th Dec 2010, 03:16 AM

I think pedophilia is sick as f***, but I'm very certain on my stance on this topic in regards to what the OP is asking. The OP makes it clear that we're talking about people with fantasies about children, not anyone that committed a rape, or child molestation. I believe that a person has a right to fantasize about whatever the heck they'd like to think about- so long as that's all it is. If they want to use a doll, fine by me- it's better than my kid. Until someone is guilty of a crime, I believe they should have every right the rest of us have.

itsnotozzyitsozzy

24th Dec 2010, 05:51 PM

Well we all got secrets and some urges we just cannot help, They should get some rights but they shouldn't get the right to be around children.
idk, if kids do not want to be malested/raped then they shouldn't be walking around in booty shorts with the words JUICY on the back of them.

TRIriana

24th Dec 2010, 06:52 PM

idk, if kids do not want to be malested/raped then they shouldn't be walking around in booty shorts with the words JUICY on the back of them.

A belief that has been brought up in threads such as this before. I'm sure you'll find much the same response now, as then if you browse older threads. A man/women/child can walk around in whatever the Hell they feel comfortable in; and it still gives no one else the right to touch them in a way that they disagree with. They are not "asking for it" by wearing clothes some may consider sexual in nature.

Lance

24th Dec 2010, 07:04 PM

They are not "asking for it", they are just plain stupid.

unalisaa

24th Dec 2010, 07:56 PM

They are not "asking for it", they are just plain stupid.
Even if they're stupid, they do in no way deserve to be molested. Even if they were wearing a t-shirt that said "I want a paedophile to grope my bottom", they do in no way deserve to be molested; a crime is always the responsibility of the perpetrator.

HystericalParoxysm

24th Dec 2010, 08:18 PM

Additionally, the vast majority of children who are victimized do not dress provocatively or in especially revealing clothing... they're just normal kids. People who are attracted to children are generally (at least from what I've read) attracted to the innocence of them... that's the whole point, apparently. And blaming the victim, who is incapable of consenting in any case, is just foolish.

el_flel

24th Dec 2010, 08:59 PM

I don't know about the rest of you but when I was a child my parents bought my clothes, not me, so it hardly makes sense to blame children for what they wear when they aren't the ones buying them :rolleyes:

It is beyond me why people actually think it's ok to place blame on a sexual abuse victim. It's NEVER ok to sexually abuse someone; it is of no relevance what the victim wore. It's almost like the people who have this mentality are condoning the actions of the perpetrator.

Lance

25th Dec 2010, 10:07 AM

I do not condone any crimes, especially sexual ones.
But you can't know for sure what those people around you intend to do. Provoking a potential rapist to chose you of all people is not wise.

HystericalParoxysm

25th Dec 2010, 11:13 AM

Except what "provokes" a sexual predator is something you can't possibly know. Dressing provocatively may be the turn-on for one, while blonde hair for another, or dressing very conservatively for another. The crimes committed by a sexual predator are -completely- 100% totally and utterly the responsibility of the sexual predator themselves, especially in the case of a child who couldn't possibly have consented at all. The only thing you can do to protect yourself is to stay vigilant about your surroundings, walk with confidence, and be prepared to kick, bite, scratch, and fight for your life if you -are- attacked.

That said, most rapes (of both children and adults) are committed by people they know and trust. Random attacks are quite rare, and so much like a "strike of lightning" you can't possibly protect yourself.

Lance

25th Dec 2010, 11:52 AM

Provocative dressing is called "provocative" not by a coincidence.

HystericalParoxysm

25th Dec 2010, 12:04 PM

Except that it may simply provoke most people to go "Hmm, they look interesting." People should dress how they feel comfortable, and if that happens to be in revealing clothing... whatever. It's up to each individual to control themselves and NOT FUCKING RAPE PEOPLE. I'm not sure why we're even still discussing this...

Lance

25th Dec 2010, 12:24 PM

'Cuz you didn't get my point? :lol:
You can walk even naked for all I care, and I agree a person who'll rape you is 100% guilty by definition.
But I sincerely hope you'll teach your children not to undress before strangers... and not-so-strangers too.

PS I do not believe you are talking now of provocative reavealing clothes being "interesting" while you was the one who edited all the TS2 female clothes to remove bare skin :lol:

dutch

25th Dec 2010, 12:29 PM

Who would actually teach their own children to undress before people... unless they are pedophiles themselves?

HystericalParoxysm

25th Dec 2010, 12:48 PM

The only person who would assault a child if they undressed is someone who would do so even if the child -were- dressed.

My tastes for my game do not reflect my own real-life sensibilities. I don't necessarily like midriffs showing or tons of cleavage everywhere in the game, but that doesn't mean I necessarily have an issue with it IRL. They're two completely separate things in my mind.

Lance

25th Dec 2010, 12:55 PM

Yes, yes, yes. But if someone is aroused already by this child nakedness, chances of assault is somewhat greater.

HystericalParoxysm

25th Dec 2010, 01:12 PM

No, they're really not. If someone is going to assault a child, they're going to find a way to, whether that child is clothed, unclothed, or whatever. Just as if someone is going to assault an adult, they're going to find a way to, no matter what that person is wearing. You can grope through clothes, or put hands under clothes, or take clothes off. Even in cases where sex offenders have been chemically castrated (or surgically castrated), they often still use hands or other objects to assault their victims. All they need is someone who is vulnerable who fits their criteria for a victim, the opportunity to do so, and the willingness to do so.

Besides, as I already said, kids are most often victimized by close relatives or family friends - people who you might, say, trust to give your child a bath, or watch them over the weekend, or otherwise be in a position to be alone with them. A kid is, statistically, safer running around naked in public on a beach (totally common here) than to be alone in their own home with their uncle - clothed or not.

Protecting children from sex crimes is about teaching children that as soon as children are old enough to understand, that nobody is allowed to touch them in a way that makes them uncomfortable, especially not in certain places... And making sure they have trusted adults in their life that, if anything -did- happen, that they can go to that adult, tell them, have the adult believe them, and get them help... And that adults are paying attention, watching for changes in the child's behavior or warning signs that might go missed otherwise. Children who are vulnerable, without a strong support system, are likely to be chosen by predators... not because they're wearing short shorts, but because they are unlikely to report the abuse or unlikely to be believed if they did report it.

As for random attacks, there's little one can do to prevent that besides teaching children in general to trust their instincts and be aware of their surroundings... if they notice someone watching them a bit too much, go the other way. If someone is following them, run, scream, and don't stop until they're safe.

Lance

25th Dec 2010, 01:23 PM

Are you sure all the rapes are throughly planned? Spontaneous ones are not less dangerous. Yes, those are less than a half of all rapes, but let us prevent what we can prevent.

Edit: Oh, you expanded your message. Yes, teaching children is must.

HystericalParoxysm

25th Dec 2010, 01:37 PM

Assaults on children are almost always done by family members or family friends - people who are close to the child and in a position to be trusted by the parents and the child. A child's chances of being assaulted by a stranger are about the same as their chances of being struck by lightning. And the way a child is dressed has very little to do with those few random attacks - it has more to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What -can- be done to prevent it I detailed above... teaching children to scream, bite, kick, and run if someone does try to grab them. And to pay attention to people around them... People who are victimized (and I don't just mean sexual assault but robbery as well) are often those who look like they're not paying attention... fiddling with their phones, head down, lost in thought, because they're not going to react until someone's already basically right there and about to strike, making it easier for their attacker. In self-defense courses one is often taught to always be vigilant. Look around as you walk, hold your head up, walk with purpose. They're good lessons to teach to anyone to avoid random attacks for whatever reason.

jay_envy

25th Dec 2010, 01:38 PM

Why is this even under discussion? Pedophilia is a mental disease and should be treated as such. Taking away someones rights because of it wouldn't be constitutional or just. I mean, its completely understandable to be disgusted and angry at those who follow through with their desires (who should absolutely be jailed for it) but there are also a vast majority who suppress said desires, and have no intention on following through with them.

If someone is struggling with it and is actually contemplating going through with it, they should definitely seek psychiatric help. They even make pills for such a thing iirc; a sort of chemical castration, that rids the user of his/her sexual desires.

HystericalParoxysm

25th Dec 2010, 01:39 PM

Dunno why my last post is not showing up to be edited yet (but is showing on new posts) but in any case I think we're veering off topic... The topic at hand is what rights non-harmful pedophiles should have, and whether free speech should be extended to descriptions of crimes and instructions on how to commit crimes.

And with that I'm so not posting anymore in this thread because discussing this is turning my stomach and it's Xmas, dammit.

pinketamine

25th Dec 2010, 06:23 PM

I do not condone any crimes, especially sexual ones.
But you can't know for sure what those people around you intend to do. Provoking a potential rapist to chose you of all people is not wise.

What.the.hell.
I can be on the street wearing my bra and my panties as only clothes if I want, I can smile and blink all the men I frigging want, but it does not give ANYONE the right to attack me. Saying this is justifying rapists, even if you don't want to see it.
Saying "don't let your kid go to the beach naked, because they'll provoke child molesters, is giving a justification to the abuser.
People should start to learn that nudity is not an invitation to anything. Nudity is simply the lack of clothes, is a natural thing and I can do it if it pleases me, and NO ONE has the right to touch my body without my consent even when I'm showing it.
Seriously, saying that short skirts of tops are a justification for rapists is plain SICK.

Lance

26th Dec 2010, 06:21 AM

pinketamine, all you said and all I said do not decline each other. I agree with you, really. And with the most of what HystericalParoxysm said, too.

But... well... the day you get your job paid, you do not put all the money and your credit card into the back pocket of your jeans in that manner so that everyone would be able to see you have $50000 with you.

Edit2:
I can be on the street wearing my bra and my panties as only clothes if I want, I can smile and blink all the men I frigging want, but it does not give ANYONE the right to attack me.
Your common problem is you believe that someone who don't have the right to do something ACTUALLY WON'T do it given a chance.

wickedblue

26th Dec 2010, 02:00 PM

Only in cases of sexual violence does anyone think to blame the victim. It's her fault that she was there at that time. Wearing that skirt. Flirting with that guy. Drinking that alcohol. Wearing that color of lipstick. Walking alone at night. Not having knowledge of self-defense. Provoking him. Not screaming when he attacked. Etc.,etc, etfuckingcetera.

These are children we are discussing here. Which makes this victim blaming shit even more disgusting.

It really is as simple as this: the perpetrator is the only one to blame for their actions.

That's a complete thought. There's no "but" to it.

Lance

26th Dec 2010, 02:10 PM

She was walking on empty street in 02AM nearly naked and flirted with half-drunked guy who had all his body covered with prison tattoos.
No, that is not her fault that she was raped.
But she still get raped and injured (and possibly killed) - and she had a chance to avoid that.

Edit: HP is right. I quit the thread.
You are willing to risk with your bodies and your children because you trust people around you are fully able to control themselves - all right, go for it. Why do I care?

HystericalParoxysm

26th Dec 2010, 02:17 PM

Staff Note: Please stay on topic.

The current line of discussion has nothing to do with the topic. Please re-read the first post if you need a refresher on what the topic of this thread is.

jay_envy

26th Dec 2010, 04:32 PM

Did anybody hear about the author of that 'Pedophilia Guide' getting arrested? Yeah, he apparently sent a copy of his book to a Florida D.A., I believe. I'm not sure how you could get jailed for that, but it seems as though they were looking for any little thing to put this guy away. Its unfortunate because this guy doesn't need jail, he needs extensive psychiatric help.

pinketamine

26th Dec 2010, 08:42 PM

I didn't know about that jay_envy. Why was he arrested? Apparently, the book might contain "tips" on how to commit an actual crime without getting punishment or getting softer punishments. If that is true, then I think he is doing something illegal, so I agree with the arrest.

jay_envy

26th Dec 2010, 08:45 PM

I wasn't entirely sure of the contents of the guide, but thats really disgusting. So yes, he should be jailed for the book, but as for being a pedophile he should get psychiatric help. Just sending him off to jail for 10 or so years won't do any good, because he'll still be an active pedophile when he gets out.

fakepeeps7

26th Dec 2010, 10:16 PM

Sending him to a shrink probably isn't going to help, either. At least if he's in jail, he won't have access to kids.

whiterider

26th Dec 2010, 11:21 PM

Does anyone know what he was charged with?

fakepeeps7

26th Dec 2010, 11:45 PM

Does anyone know what he was charged with?

Felony obscenity charges (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/author-of-pedophilia-guide-sold-on-amazon-facing-obscenity-charges-in-florida.html), apparently.

jay_envy

27th Dec 2010, 09:21 AM

Sending him to a shrink probably isn't going to help, either. At least if he's in jail, he won't have access to kids.

I'm not speaking of seeing a 'shrink' once or twice a week, but instead should be sent to a psychiatric facility. He'd be held there without the possibility to leave the grounds of the facility. You have to remember he has a mental disorder. Yes, what he's doing is astonishingly disgusting, but in his mind he actually considers it love.

All I'm saying is you can't get a life sentence for molesting a child, so he'd be a free man eventually. I'd rather he get the help that will allow him to actually see what he is doing is wrong, instead of stewing in his own thoughts for 7 to 10 years in jail only to get out and continue on doing what hes doing.

whiterider

27th Dec 2010, 02:02 PM

"Obscenity charges"... how very informative. I suppose it's a useful logical lacuna in this case though.

fakepeeps7

27th Dec 2010, 07:22 PM

~Dee~

29th Dec 2010, 12:15 AM

Anyone who writes a book on how to commit a crime should be jailed IMO.

Any guide book with instructions to abuse a child, kill someone without getting caught, robbing a bank etc. all the authors should be held responsible for what they write.
I don't think it should fall under ' Freedom of Speech'. It's the same if you threaten someone verbally, you can get arrested, why should it be different when it's written in a book.

ElementMK

29th Dec 2010, 01:46 AM

Anyone who writes a book on how to commit a crime should be jailed IMO.While that would be ideal, such a restriction would be on the thin edge of the wedge. Why shouldn't we begin to jail those whose books imply criminal activity, or whose books have a criminal activity take place in the story?

Besides, if nothing else, the book in question will allow us to study the mind of this man, and that could be important in better understanding the thought processes and behavior of someone who is a pedophile. If we know more about pedophiles, we'll be better equipped as a society to handle them.

el_flel

29th Dec 2010, 01:54 AM

^ Agreed. I think that would just open up a huge can of worms. Lots of people write about crime in both fiction and non-fiction capacities. Where would you draw the line?

whiterider

29th Dec 2010, 02:26 AM

Wilfully inducing another to commit a crime is illegal in most systems; this could be appropriate - it's quite clear that when you read a crime novel, the author is absolutely not suggesting that you go out and commit a crime; but an "instruction book" could very easily be held to consist a wilful encouragement or suggestion - induction - to readers that they should go out and commit crime. In some cases inducing carries a lesser penalty than the actual crime; however there are some systems, such as the German, where a person found guilty of inducing another to a crime is considered to be a co-perpetrator and sentenced as such. Of course, then there actually has to be a crime which you can directly link back to the influence of this book.

jay_envy

29th Dec 2010, 03:00 AM

What I find eerie about this whole situation is that an upwards of 10,000 copies were sold. I'm sure some of which could have been for psychological studies, as it gives an in-depth look at the mind of a pedophile, but how many out of the 10,000? Bleggk.

Oaktree

29th Dec 2010, 08:16 PM

At least they were able to charge him with something, though. This is probably a tricky case. Short of actually catching him with a kid and charging him with sexually abusing a child, I'm not sure what else they could charge him with. He could always claim it's free speech, or even that it's fiction and not to be taken seriously. Obscenity was probably the only thing they could do... for now. I bet if they searched his home and computer they'd find plenty of other stuff to lay charges with.

The only problem is that charging him with obscenity is restricting free speech. I honestly don't even understand how obscenity laws are judged constitutional. No one is being harmed by the obscenities in the book without actually pursuing the book to read of their own free will.

Yes, he seems like he has probably committed terrible crimes in the past without getting caught, but we honestly don't know that. Plenty of people have simply made up autobiographical stories, others have pretended to be experts in areas they have little knowledge of. He could simply be faking it in order to get people riled up, or to test the justice system. The only proper way to handle this is to charge him in a just manner.

fakepeeps7

29th Dec 2010, 08:44 PM

The only problem is that charging him with obscenity is restricting free speech. I honestly don't even understand how obscenity laws are judged constitutional. No one is being harmed by the obscenities in the book without actually pursuing the book to read of their own free will.

You could say the same thing about some forms of child pornography. We don't know if this guy is drawing on personal experience (although, judging by this article (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/amazon/author-pedophile-book-says-he-has-sold-one-copy-creepy-title), he very well may be):

Greaves said that he was introduced to sex at age seven by a 10-year-old girl. “I learned about oral sex that day,” he recalled. Greaves said that he continued to engage in sexual activity with other children until he was 15, when “my father put the fear of God in me to stop. Most of the children I was with were younger than me at the time,” said Greaves.

They charged him in Florida because they couldn't charge him in Colorado. And the charges were for distributing "obscene material depicting minors engaged in activities harmful to minors". (The guy's also been committed to a mental hospital after a "mental collapse". He doesn't exactly sound stable. And while I do believe in free speech, a line does need to be drawn. Otherwise, anything is acceptable and can end up fueling the problems of other pedophiles out there.)

I don't know how anyone could sanely argue that the world is a worse place because perverts aren't allowed to tell other people how to molest children. If that sort of thing is required for some idealized, free speech utopia... Well, too bad for children, right?

Oaktree

29th Dec 2010, 09:07 PM

You could say the same thing about some forms of child pornography.

Except child pornography involves actual children. In making child pornography, there are children actively being hurt. In writing about a fantasy scenario, there are no actual children being hurt.

We don't know if this guy is drawing on personal experience (although, judging by this article (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/amazon/author-pedophile-book-says-he-has-sold-one-copy-creepy-title), he very well may be):

Greaves said that he was introduced to sex at age seven by a 10-year-old girl. “I learned about oral sex that day,” he recalled. Greaves said that he continued to engage in sexual activity with other children until he was 15, when “my father put the fear of God in me to stop. Most of the children I was with were younger than me at the time,” said Greaves.

So he should be charged with the things he has done, if they can charge him for them. They probably can't charge him with any of that because he was a minor at the time and the statute of limitations is probably up, but, should he commit a crime in the future, he should be charged with that.

They charged him in Florida because they couldn't charge him in Colorado. And the charges were for distributing "obscene material depicting minors engaged in activities harmful to minors". (The guy's also been committed to a mental hospital after a "mental collapse". He doesn't exactly sound stable. And while I do believe in free speech, a line does need to be drawn. Otherwise, anything is acceptable and can end up fueling the problems of other pedophiles out there.)

To use an example I used earlier, many movies depict murder. That is material depicting people doing harmful activities, but it is legal. Many movies and tv shows even give pointers on how to commit murder and be more likely to get away with it. Yet, these things are allowed as entertainment. While most people would not be entertained by depictions of pedophilia, there are also many people who are not entertained by depictions of murder. What truly distinguishes the two?

Further, it has been suggested that allowing pedophilic erotic fiction or cartoon porn could reduce the incidence of crimes against children by providing a harmless outlet. If the book had been simply a collection of erotic writings, there really wouldn't be any good reason to take legal action against the author. As it stands, whiterider's suggestion, willfully inducing another to commit a crime, makes more sense than obscenity charges. I still think that charging him with that goes too far in removing the personal responsibility of anyone who might be inspired by the book, but I think that it is a more just option than charging him with obscenity.

I don't know how anyone could sanely argue that the world is a worse place because perverts aren't allowed to tell other people how to molest children. If that sort of thing is required for some idealized, free speech utopia... Well, too bad for children, right?

Generalize the problem: you would have to disallow violent media, books that advise about how to pick locks or perform other kinds of subterfuge, depictions of tax evasion, and even academic books that describe the motives and mindset of criminals. This would strip us of most of the things we find entertainment in because a story without conflict simply isn't interesting. It would also remove media that condemns those behaviors, reducing our ability to teach people not to do things that are condemned by society. This is the problem of censorship: if you think that depicting certain things will "corrupt" people and you remove all depictions of those things, you cannot tell them to not do the things you don't want them to do, and there is always the risk of people coming up with those things on their own. It is better to be able to condemn those things, and, in cases of media that supports those things, to be able to study the mindset of individuals that do those things. Media that looks favorably upon certain crimes may not be for children, as children may not have a developed moral/ethical sense, but adults who know right from wrong can certainly study those things and gain useful knowledge of the human mind from those things.

fakepeeps7

29th Dec 2010, 10:26 PM

Except child pornography involves actual children. In making child pornography, there are children actively being hurt. In writing about a fantasy scenario, there are no actual children being hurt.

That may be the attitude in the U.S., but cartoon pornography is against the law in a number of countries.

So he should be charged with the things he has done, if they can charge him for them. They probably can't charge him with any of that because he was a minor at the time and the statute of limitations is probably up, but, should he commit a crime in the future, he should be charged with that.

That brings up another problem with the justice system. Statutes of limitations are just ridiculous. Just because a certain number of years have passed doesn't mean the crime has magically ceased to exist. (I think it's awfully convenient, though, that he says he stopped molesting kids at age 15. If they ever did want to try him for anything, they probably couldn't try him as an adult. Crafty fellow.)

While most people would not be entertained by depictions of pedophilia, there are also many people who are not entertained by depictions of murder. What truly distinguishes the two?

The fact that, in cases where it's an on-screen depiction, you pretty much have to commit child molestation to depict pedophilia.

Further, it has been suggested that allowing pedophilic erotic fiction or cartoon porn could reduce the incidence of crimes against children by providing a harmless outlet.

Child molesters already have a problem with impulse control. And what happens when the fiction or cartoons are no longer enough to satisfy their desires?

Generalize the problem: you would have to disallow violent media, books that advise about how to pick locks or perform other kinds of subterfuge, depictions of tax evasion, and even academic books that describe the motives and mindset of criminals.

I never suggested generalizing the problem. You did. I'm talking about the encouraging of child abuse... not fudging on your taxes. It's not all or nothing, you know. Just because you ban instruction manuals for pedophiles doesn't mean you have to ban everything else that could be considered harmful. People who get pleasure from reading about sex acts against children are not the same as people who enjoy a crime thriller. The latter can usually distinguish fantasy from reality; the former... perhaps not so much.

This is the problem of censorship: if you think that depicting certain things will "corrupt" people and you remove all depictions of those things, you cannot tell them to not do the things you don't want them to do, and there is always the risk of people coming up with those things on their own.

That makes no sense. Pedophilia will still exist whether or not Amazon sells books about it. But at least they won't be complicit in some child getting raped because their molester read a how-to manual.

It is better to be able to condemn those things, and, in cases of media that supports those things, to be able to study the mindset of individuals that do those things.

Not everybody is a psychology major, and not everybody needs to study the mindset of these individuals. The people who need these books will still have access to them (the police got a copy of the book after Amazon pulled it). But there's no reason for the general public (and all the pedophiles looking for titillation) to have access to such books.

Media that looks favorably upon certain crimes may not be for children, as children may not have a developed moral/ethical sense, but adults who know right from wrong can certainly study those things and gain useful knowledge of the human mind from those things.

But not every adult knows right from wrong. The existence of such a book proves it.

whiterider

29th Dec 2010, 10:59 PM

The fact that, in cases where it's an on-screen depiction, you pretty much have to commit child molestation to depict pedophilia.That's not necessarily true. Just as murder is usually depicted by inference, anything else can be - I was given The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold for Christmas, and once I finished reading it I watched the film: the main character is a fourteen yearold girl who is raped, murdered and dismembered. The directors portrayed it very powerfully - despite only asking the actress to perform one violent scene, depicting her trying to run away up a ladder and being pulled back down by the murderer. Similarly I've seen many films and other programs portray rape without so much as a hint of nudity, violence with little or no blood or gore - it might be stressful for the actors and actresses, but it's hardly abuse.

fakepeeps7

29th Dec 2010, 11:56 PM

That's not necessarily true. Just as murder is usually depicted by inference, anything else can be - I was given The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold for Christmas, and once I finished reading it I watched the film: the main character is a fourteen yearold girl who is raped, murdered and dismembered. The directors portrayed it very powerfully - despite only asking the actress to perform one violent scene, depicting her trying to run away up a ladder and being pulled back down by the murderer. Similarly I've seen many films and other programs portray rape without so much as a hint of nudity, violence with little or no blood or gore - it might be stressful for the actors and actresses, but it's hardly abuse.

Stressing a child out isn't abuse? Funny that it would count as abuse to animals, but not to children... :wtf: Anyway, it could be argued as abusive if the child was too young to really understand what was going on. Would you want your three-year-old to be cast as a nude rape victim in a movie? How on earth would you explain that to them?

What you're talking about (implied rape, murder, etc.) probably wouldn't fall under the category of pornography, anyway. But there is a lot horrible crap out there, and it's not always made via legal means. It seems there are stories all the time about men making child pornography using their own toddlers, and distributing it online to other perverts.

Free speech shouldn't mean that anything goes. But then, I guess I have a bit of a different take on things, since my country has actual hate crime laws. You can say what you like... as long as it doesn't incite violence or hatred. The book in question could lead to harm (violence) against children. That was its intended purpose. As such, it shouldn't be available to the public.

whiterider

30th Dec 2010, 12:42 AM

Certainly it wouldn't be pornography, no - but it didn't seem like only pornography was being discussed. :) I'm always a little leery of young children acting...but I guess if it's done properly and carefully, it wouldn't do real damage. Of course that's not the case if a child is actually abused - but that's already criminal.

I don't support the idea that "free speech means ANYTHING" at all - and I do think that the book should be banned, although I'm not convinced that the author should be incarcerated solely for writing it.

unalisaa

30th Dec 2010, 04:20 AM

I don't support the idea that "free speech means ANYTHING" at all - and I do think that the book should be banned, although I'm not convinced that the author should be incarcerated solely for writing it.
Could you please explain the part I bolded? I'm not certain exactly what you mean, and I don't want to respond to something I misunderstood.

Oaktree

30th Dec 2010, 07:50 PM

That may be the attitude in the U.S., but cartoon pornography is against the law in a number of countries.

I don't think it should be illegal as it is not directly harmful. Further, this is a US case, so the fact that those things are legal here should be taken into account.

That brings up another problem with the justice system. Statutes of limitations are just ridiculous. Just because a certain number of years have passed doesn't mean the crime has magically ceased to exist. (I think it's awfully convenient, though, that he says he stopped molesting kids at age 15. If they ever did want to try him for anything, they probably couldn't try him as an adult. Crafty fellow.)

I agree that statutes of limitations are silly. I think they should be able to charge him, though it does make sense to charge him as a minor, since he was a minor when he did those things.

The fact that, in cases where it's an on-screen depiction, you pretty much have to commit child molestation to depict pedophilia.

As whiterider pointed out, that is not always true, and the same does not go for cartoons and literature.

Child molesters already have a problem with impulse control. And what happens when the fiction or cartoons are no longer enough to satisfy their desires?

Not all pedophiles have impulse control problems. Maybe some of those that give in would be less likely to do so if they had another outlet. I think that some people might eventually find fiction and cartoons to be not enough, but I doubt that the same can be said for everyone. If even a handful of people can be prevented from hurting children, it is enough to consider allowing the thing that prevents them from doing so.

I never suggested generalizing the problem. You did. I'm talking about the encouraging of child abuse... not fudging on your taxes. It's not all or nothing, you know. Just because you ban instruction manuals for pedophiles doesn't mean you have to ban everything else that could be considered harmful. People who get pleasure from reading about sex acts against children are not the same as people who enjoy a crime thriller. The latter can usually distinguish fantasy from reality; the former... perhaps not so much.

When I said generalize the problem, I meant apply the logic of your argument universally. Laws are supposed to follow universal logic because anything other than universally applicable logic leads to contradiction. And you don't know that all pedophiles can't distinguish fantasy from reality. I imagine there are plenty of people out there who have fantasies about children, but keep them under control. While I have no evidence to support this stance, you do not have a proper sampling to be able to say that all of them are impulsive crazies.

That makes no sense. Pedophilia will still exist whether or not Amazon sells books about it. But at least they won't be complicit in some child getting raped because their molester read a how-to manual.

That pedophilia will exist whether or not Amazon sells books about it is my point. People will still come up with the idea on their own, whether it is publically acknowledged or not. By allowing media depiction of it, you allow media that condemns it and media that can be used to study it.

Not everybody is a psychology major, and not everybody needs to study the mindset of these individuals. The people who need these books will still have access to them (the police got a copy of the book after Amazon pulled it). But there's no reason for the general public (and all the pedophiles looking for titillation) to have access to such books.

Why do you need to be a psychology major to study psychology? I'm not studying psychology in school, but I pick up books on it and read about it on the internet on my own time. Some people like having general knowledge of a variety of subject areas, without having to get special permission to access materials restricted to members of a certain profession. I wouldn't buy this particular book, but I wouldn't want to be scrutinized by the government for buying books with risqué topics that I plan to use for the purpose of study.

But not every adult knows right from wrong. The existence of such a book proves it.

I am aware of that fact, and books like these allow us to study the mindsets of those individuals. There might be some individuals that buy this book and find pointers on how to do something they want to do. But police and psychologists can look at this book and find ways to stop those individuals, as well as other individuals who practice similar activities without having bought the book. Parents can look at this book and see what to avoid to keep their children safer.

unalisaa

30th Dec 2010, 07:58 PM

Not everybody is a psychology major, and not everybody needs to study the mindset of these individuals. The people who need these books will still have access to them (the police got a copy of the book after Amazon pulled it). But there's no reason for the general public (and all the pedophiles looking for titillation) to have access to such books.
Does this principle only apply in the case of paedophilia, or should dangerous knowledge always be kept from the general public?

ElementMK

31st Dec 2010, 12:26 AM

Does this principle only apply in the case of paedophilia, or should dangerous knowledge always be kept from the general public?Ah, like the Necronomicon? If knowing the unknowable is crazy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnbYcB9ctu8), I don't want to be sane.

whiterider

31st Dec 2010, 01:05 AM

unalisaa, sorry, I should have been more clear. :) I don't believe that the right to free speech should mean you can say absolutely anything - words are powerful, and if you're using them deliberately or negligently to bring harm to another person then you're as culpable as if you dropped a tonne of bricks on them yourself; you shouldn't behind to hide behind something which was originally intended to avoid abuse and oppression.

fakepeeps7

31st Dec 2010, 01:33 AM

Does this principle only apply in the case of paedophilia, or should dangerous knowledge always be kept from the general public?

A book about pedophiles and child pornography is one thing. A book that graphically depicts children in sexual acts and/or that gives instructions on how to get away with abusing children is another thing altogether.

The fact that some police officers who investigate child porn rings end up traumatized because of what they've seen suggests that some things just aren't fit for consumption by the general public.

Am I just interpreting things wrong, or are people in this thread actually condoning the incitement of child abuse under the umbrella of "free speech"?

unalisaa

31st Dec 2010, 08:34 AM

Am I just interpreting things wrong, or are people in this thread actually condoning the incitement of child abuse under the umbrella of "free speech"?
I can't speak for others, obviously, but yes.
Child abuse is not a good thing, we can agree on this. But by accepting that we are allowed to remove someone's right to talk about their thoughts on how to do things because we know they're wrong, we're accepting that there is such a thing as "wrong" and "right" thoughts and that only some people can tell the difference.
This may be appropriate in this situation.
But by condoning that attitude, you are essentially saying that if the majority disagrees with you, it is alright for them to take away your voice*.
Freedom of speech is all or nothing, but there's no-one stopping people from publishing other books, books that argue against, and books that discourage reading other books. Something being available to the general public doesn't mean the general public ever wants to read it. So far I haven't met anyone who read Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in the Finnish Language, but it's freely available at my local library. If something is obscure or esoteric enough, people won't read it. Likewise, if the general public is uninterested, the book won't be read. If they are interested, the problem can't be solved by limiting their access to the book, but should be taken up in other venues.

*I realise we are moving away from the particular case in question -- a publisher refusing to distribute your work is not impairment of free speech.

fakepeeps7

31st Dec 2010, 08:01 PM

*I realise we are moving away from the particular case in question -- a publisher refusing to distribute your work is not impairment of free speech.

I'm not sure if that's the case here, either. Since the book was published through Amazon.com's self-publishing service (CreateSpace), there are no barriers like there would be in traditional publishing. Amazon at first refused to pull the book because they said it would be a violation of free speech (or something to that effect); they didn't have the option of telling the guy "sorry, but this sort of thing doesn't fit with our guidelines" like a traditional publishing house could do.

CreateSpace's content guidelines (https://www.createspace.com/Help/Rights/ContentGuidelines.jsp) are fuzzy at best, anyway. Pornography is not allowed, and neither is "offensive material"... but that term is pretty open. Animal cruelty is apparently offensive, but teaching people how to abuse children isn't.

I think part of what disturbs me the most in this case is not so much that the book got published, but that it got published through this particular company, which means that the book went up on Amazon.com for everyone (including children) to peruse and buy. Had the guy just quietly published the book with a small printer and tried to sell it in smaller venues, he might not have gotten much notice. I'm sure there are actually quite a few other similar books that would fall into that category. But this is Amazon.com we're talking about here. Continuing to carry a high-profile book like that even after people started to get offended is not appropriate. It's not just over-18s who use the site. In a way, it would be akin to putting erotica on the shelf next to The Cat in the Hat.

Oaktree

31st Dec 2010, 09:28 PM

fakepeeps7

31st Dec 2010, 09:43 PM

fakepeeps7: To the best of my knowledge, there are no restrictions on that sort of material in regular bookstores. If a 12-year-old walks into Borders and picks up a spicy romance novel, the store isn't going to refuse to sell it to the kid. Books just aren't regulated in the same manner as movies and video games.

My point was that those sorts of books won't be shelved with the children's titles in a brick-and-mortar store, whereas with an online vendor like Amazon, everything is essentially in one place, making access easier.

Regular brick-and-mortar bookstores also have more of an ability to specialize. There's one around here that carries nothing but books that would be appropriate for kids. They don't have to carry any of this questionable material. Amazon, on the other hand, is bound by their own content guidelines. They have to put the questionable books in their catalog because they've made the choice to accept pretty much anything.

Back to the main question of the thread, though, which was concerning what rights pedophiles should have. My question, after reading through all these threads, is concerning what rights the rest of us have. Do we not have the right to protect our children? Do we not have the right to ensure that our society is safe by using common sense and restricting material that could be used to harm others? Or do the pedophile's rights trump all that?

Oaktree

31st Dec 2010, 10:10 PM

My point was that those sorts of books won't be shelved with the children's titles in a brick-and-mortar store, whereas with an online vendor like Amazon, everything is essentially in one place, making access easier.

There are subcategories on Amazon. You could specifically look at children's books and never find anything unsuitable for children. In brick-and-mortar stores, it is much the same. You go to the children's section, you find children's books. You migrate outside of that and you can find things that aren't suitable for young children. There's no significant difference in the models.

Regular brick-and-mortar bookstores also have more of an ability to specialize. There's one around here that carries nothing but books that would be appropriate for kids. They don't have to carry any of this questionable material. Amazon, on the other hand, is bound by their own content guidelines. They have to put the questionable books in their catalog because they've made the choice to accept pretty much anything.

Putting it in the catalog doesn't mean it has to be in a place in the catalog that people would be likely to stumble across. And they could always change their content guidelines if they have a problem with their current guidelines. They can choose what business model they want to follow; they don't have to let people publish books through them if they don't want to.

Back to the main question of the thread, though, which was concerning what rights pedophiles should have. My question, after reading through all these threads, is concerning what rights the rest of us have. Do we not have the right to protect our children? Do we not have the right to ensure that our society is safe by using common sense and restricting material that could be used to harm others? Or do the pedophile's rights trump all that?

You are drawing a false conclusion. The availability of pornographic material that does not involve real children does not mean that children will get hurt, and, for some people, it may satisfy their urges and prevent them from pursuing real children. Allowing books such as the one we have been discussing provides material that parents and law enforcement can study to improve their odds of catching people who hurt children and protecting their children from those people in the first place. Restricting books such as this from being publically available does not stop the crime from being committed. Allowing it to be publically accessible allows people to study it to learn how to combat it.

Further, the right to freedom of expression is not just a right for pedophiles. It is a right for everyone, and the consequences of this right apply across the board, whether it is expression of political opinion, religious belief, or sexual preferences. Allowing this universal freedom of expression does not infringe on your rights; rather, it supports them. The verbal or written expression of sexual deviancy itself is not harmful and should not be prosecuted; it is only the practice of harmful sexual activity that should be prosecuted. As the saying goes, it isn't guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. The existence of books that instruct on how to commit child molestation does not remove the personal responsibility that every individual has not to do so. An individual that does so is held accountable for his actions; the blame cannot be pushed off on someone else simply because that person wrote about it. The book did not force the criminal to commit the crime. The criminal made the choice to commit the crime.

fakepeeps7

1st Jan 2011, 01:50 AM

As the saying goes, it isn't guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.

Yeah, but it's a heck of a lot easier to kill someone when you have a gun in your hand.

The existence of books that instruct on how to commit child molestation does not remove the personal responsibility that every individual has not to do so. An individual that does so is held accountable for his actions; the blame cannot be pushed off on someone else simply because that person wrote about it. The book did not force the criminal to commit the crime. The criminal made the choice to commit the crime.

It would be nice if every person in the world were capable of making rational choices, but that's just not the way things work (except maybe in some idealized Objectivist utopia). Some people simply can't control themselves, for a variety of reasons, and they may end up hurting other people.

I don't agree that it's right to let people say or publish whatever they like just because it infringes on their freedom of speech, and harping on the same old points isn't going to change my mind. I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because you ban one thing doesn't mean you have to ban everything. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand, and it's already applied to other things (that's where our laws come from). The "let's study it" argument is also weak, because you can get that information from other more ethical sources without putting money in the pocket of a pervert.

Amazon did the right thing by pulling the book. Had they not done so, they could potentially have been profiting off the abuse of children. The book's purpose was to teach pedophiles how to abuse children and get away with it... not offer insight into the mind of a sexual deviant. It doesn't matter how many police officers buy the book to use as a resource; it will still be used for its intended purpose, which is a criminal one.

And I'd really like to see these studies you keep talking about that show that pedophiles who look at child porn are less likely to abuse children. That just doesn't sound right to me. I want to see the numbers.

Oaktree

1st Jan 2011, 09:25 AM

Yeah, but it's a heck of a lot easier to kill someone when you have a gun in your hand.

Whether it is easier or not is not the point. The point is that the gun isn't going to get up and shoot someone of its own free will. The gun is only dangerous in the hands of a dangerous person. In the hands of a pacifist, it is harmless. In the hands of a potential victim or an agent of justice, it can even come to be a beneficial thing.

It would be nice if every person in the world were capable of making rational choices, but that's just not the way things work (except maybe in some idealized Objectivist utopia). Some people simply can't control themselves, for a variety of reasons, and they may end up hurting other people.

Let's begin by setting aside whether you think a particular individual is capable of controlling himself or not. Legally speaking, unless you are a child or a severely mentally ill person, you are held accountable for your actions, no matter how poor your judgement or impulse control. When some frat boy decides that he's going to drink and drive, they don't let him off because he can't control himself. They hold him responsible because no one else can be held responsible for his actions and punishment may provide the right kind of psychological incentive to make him better able to control himself in the future. It can't be any other way. It's not society's fault when you can't control yourself. The only person you can blame for your own poor choices is you.

As to the mentally ill, paraphillias are rarely considered enough of an impairment to absolve someone of responsibility. The types of illnesses that generally warrant that kind of legal exception are illnesses in which the individual truly has no grasp on reality. Schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder, and others that involve a similar level of delusion are the types of illnesses that lead to legal clemency. And in cases in which such an individual commits a crime, if the caretaker of that individual is found to have been negligent, the caretaker can often be held responsible. There is no magical sinkhole of responsibility. You can't just say that no one is responsible for something that someone did.

I don't agree that it's right to let people say or publish whatever they like just because it infringes on their freedom of speech, and harping on the same old points isn't going to change my mind. I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because you ban one thing doesn't mean you have to ban everything. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand, and it's already applied to other things (that's where our laws come from). The "let's study it" argument is also weak, because you can get that information from other more ethical sources without putting money in the pocket of a pervert.

I'm only bringing up the same old points because they are counters to your argument. I was under the impression that you weren't paying attention to the things that I had written before, because you were providing arguments that, it seemed to me, were fairly obviously countered by earlier points I had made. So I restated some of my old points to show you the particular way in which my previous arguments counter your own.

It isn't just to ban one thing when another thing that could be banned on similar grounds is left alone. It is a logical contradiction. And I wouldn't use our laws as any sort of an idealized model of how laws should work. One of the worst aspects of our code of laws is the sheer volume of exceptionalism in the laws. There is very little logical consistency in our laws.

It's your choice whether you want to "put money in the pocket of a pervert." If you think it is worth it to do so for the sake of knowledge with a potentially practical use, you can make that choice. The publisher can make the same choice. There is nothing wrong with Amazon pulling the book if they did not want to be responsible for it. That is not true censorship. That is simply a choice that the company can make. The problem comes in where the government decides to get involved. When the government decides for the company and consumers, that is a restriction of freedom.

Amazon did the right thing by pulling the book. Had they not done so, they could potentially have been profiting off the abuse of children. The book's purpose was to teach pedophiles how to abuse children and get away with it... not offer insight into the mind of a sexual deviant. It doesn't matter how many police officers buy the book to use as a resource; it will still be used for its intended purpose, which is a criminal one.

Whether the author intended it to be used to counter the activities of child molesters or not makes no difference. It can be used in that manner, so the existence of the book has both good and bad consequences. While the author probably did terrible things to gain the knowledge that he imparts in the book, in sharing that knowledge, he is unintentionally aiding law enforcement. Yes, he is also aiding potential child molesters (assuming that his tips are actually "good" ones), but my central argument still stands: to legally restrict him from putting his ideas out there leads to the legal obligation to restrict other materials that are relatively harmless, as well as placing blame on the person imparting the knowledge, when the blame for a crime should rest solely on the shoulders of the person who committed it (assuming the person can be held responsible). Let's once again apply this argument to another depiction of crime. Take the show Dexter. I haven't seen much of it, as it is not to my taste, but it seems to favorably depict vigilate activity and, beyond that, murder. The main character is a man who kills other criminals and this is depicted in a positive light. How is depicting murder in a positive light logically any different from depicting child molestation in a positive light? I find both to be in bad taste, but if one is legal, why should the other be illegal?

And I'd really like to see these studies you keep talking about that show that pedophiles who look at child porn are less likely to abuse children. That just doesn't sound right to me. I want to see the numbers.

From this study (http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html):

The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography, without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%.

This paragraph was in reference to years in which pornographic material became increasingly available in Japan. It found that the incidence of rape, particularly of younger victims decreased as pornography became more available. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but there is certainly no evidence in this study that an increase in pornography causes an increase in rape. It would seem to suggest the opposite.