Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Sozac:
While drawing and doing aren't exactly the same, which is obvious, haven't we sort of collectively decided as a species that this kind of thought and expression is pretty harmful.

We as a species have decided exactly the opposite.

if "thought and expression" was harmful we wouldn't have any violent movies, games, books, stories ect. Besides, Thought is very rarely a bad thing. Its when those thoughts become actions is when there is a problem.

And it sets a good precedent. Because if they got away with this what is to stop them on the next moral crusade? What would be next? Standard porn? Violence in television? Violence in games? Cursing in movies? If one bit of expression if under attack, and no one stands up to it because they think its distasteful, who will stand up when something you enjoy comes under attack?

Just because we find it distasteful the man hasn't hurt a single person. So he is as likely a pedophile as a person who plays Gears of War is a violent murderer. So what should he be punished for if he hasn't hurt a single person and hasn't even tried to hurt a person. The items in his possession weren't even used to hurt someone in the past (Aka real pictures)?

And for me personally it is horribly depressing that someone would say that just to play it safe something should be banned when they have jack all proof that is is harmful, well there is no conclusive proof that violent games don't cause violent individuals so lets ban them too, or anything else we happen not to like. These are the people holding the world back. I need to go drink now.

Frankly, I don't support child porn whether or not it involves real children, if only because I refuse to support any kind of pedophilia.

Happy this blow against the idea of thought crime has been struck. Thoughts are not crimes, actions are. Now if only other countries would take notice, looking at you UK.....

No-one seems to get that if you set the precedent that crimes can happen to non real people, it will have a big impact on video-games? No-one seems to get that we as gamers should be very concerned by this idea.

I love the hypocrisy on these forums as well. People who one minute argue that you are crazy to think, that being exposed to violent videos make people violent. Then turn around and think it is logical that being exposed to drawings of child (including 17 year olds, as the law is written, even though the age of consent in Sweden is much younger), will make you want to abuse children. Can anyone see the disconnect between those two positions.

'Well even if there is no conclusive evidence better safe than sorry?' Hope legislators don't get the same idea with video games.

People here are so disappointing....

KeyMaster45:
Hmm, several posts of people affirming that they agree with the ruling. Pffft, that's boring. I offer up a bounty of 57 internets to whomever can build a reasonably sane argument against the ruling.

HE DRAWS PICTURES OF CHILDREN, HALF NAKED!!
The man should be sentenced to death!

sethisjimmy:

Grey Carter:
He disputed the ruling, arguing that you need children for child pornography and that drawings aren't children

This phrasing is hilarious, doubly so due to it being essentially the perfect rock solid defense. I like to think that the prosecution just felt like a massive moron when he realized his case had absolutely no grounds whatsoever.

I am so stealing this next time this argument comes up.

Anyway I said it before but every single argument in favor of banning this is a copy pasted reason for banning GTA.

They both have the same amount of proof that they cause people to commit crimes (none). There are people who find them disgusting and offensive and they're fictional portrayals of horrible crimes.

PayneTrayne:

Charli:
Don't like that kind of stuff, still glad the guy got off.

Are you sure you don't want to phrase that a little bit differently?

But seriously, I'm glad to see that the human race is using common sense.

No, I really am that immature.

BrotherRool:

General Vagueness:

to make this short, correlation isn't the same as causation

[snip]

However if I create a controlled experiment where I choose to turn the tap 100 times and see what happens, a correlation there has a stronger implication of causation. It's because the independent variable has been consciously changed, so is less connected to other things. Naturally it's still not a complete implication of causation but it removes lots of incidents where you would have coincidental correlation, because often that stems from a third variable, that both observed variables are related to.

Is there an experiment that gave people this material and then observed that they had a reaction? If not there's still a hole there, like with any claim that a given stimulation causes or elevates a given behavior: the person might be (and IMHO probably is) more likely to seek out the stimulation if they already have whatever the character trait or behavior is.

General Vagueness:

BrotherRool:

General Vagueness:

to make this short, correlation isn't the same as causation

[snip]

However if I create a controlled experiment where I choose to turn the tap 100 times and see what happens, a correlation there has a stronger implication of causation. It's because the independent variable has been consciously changed, so is less connected to other things. Naturally it's still not a complete implication of causation but it removes lots of incidents where you would have coincidental correlation, because often that stems from a third variable, that both observed variables are related to.

Is there an experiment that gave people this material and then observed that they had a reaction? If not there's still a hole there, like with any claim that a given stimulation causes or elevates a given behavior: the person might be (and IMHO probably is) more likely to seek out the stimulation if they already have whatever the character trait or behavior is.

This is why I don't study psychology, because almost every psychology experiment in the history of psychology is fundamentally flawed cos of selection bias.

I mean a couple of days ago I took part in a charity experiment that I found about through emails that promised no reward.

And since it's unethical to experiment on people without their consent, this will always be the case, except in broadly statistical experiments and as we've already said, then we have correlation problems.

You can't even do stuff with rats. I took part in another experiment recently from a psychologist who realised that most space-awareness psychology comes from rat experiments and decided to ask the basic question 'Do humans think like rats?' and it turns out, they don't.

Anyway in this case it seems like most of the pornography causes more violent behaviour experiments it tended to be participants been deliberately exposed over periods of time. Hopefully with control groups which should weed out irregularities in people more likely to seek the stuff out outside of experiment time too

This might stir up some controversy. But that's okay, it needs to be said anyways.

NuclearShadow:
This sort of material should be outlawed as it is depreciating children in sexual acts. It isn't for artistic value but instead for sexual gratification from the idea of children in sexual encounters.

Outlawed?

"I don't think that word means what you think it means"[1] is, I think, an appropriate phrase to quote here.

Let me walk you through the procedure of what happens when someone is suspected and then convicted of a "crime", so that you can appreciate the gravity of the statement you just made.

Depending on the nature of the crime in question, you might receive something known as a "Summons To Appear at Court", which is a euphemistic way to say "We will have armed men kick down your door and kidnap you if you don't come quietly"... or they may just bypass the request altogether and go straight to the door-kicking and kidnapping.

Either way, if you resist said kidnapping, you will be beaten, tazed, gassed, and so on until you have been incapacitated. If you foresee this possibility and attempt to protect yourself in any meaningful way with any sort of weapon, you will probably be shot. Large pets who rush to your defense will most likely be executed, and your children may be kidnapped as well and sent to an agency created to house children of adults much like yourself.

Once you have been kidnapped you will be hauled off to an internment camp to be processed by your kidnappers. You will probably be forced to inhabit a smelly, overcrowded, temporary cell (assuming you live in the U.S.) for some time until pretrial arrangements have been taken care of or proper space has been made for you, both of which aren't likely to happen for a long time. In order to pressure you into pleading guilty, you will be forced to pay a deposit before being allowed to leave (to entice you to come back at their request) that is set to an amount you probably can't afford, usually in cash only.

Your trial will be held by a robed adjudicator employed by the same people who kidnapped you, a prosecutor employed by the same people who kidnapped you, and a lawyer appointed to you by the same people who kidnapped you (if you are among the many less privileged who are unable to afford their own lawyers).

If you are unlucky, your crime will be one quite similar to one that these people, their colleagues, and their predecessors have taken to trial before in the past, and whose verdict at the time would condemn you today as well. If that is the case, all three of these people will advise you to plead guilty and refrain from requesting a jury trial, in order to save them time[2], usually with threats of contempt of court or stiffer jail sentences for the more routine cases. Your own representative, if you can afford one, will similarly request that you refrain from a lengthy trial in order to save you in legal fees.

If you are deemed innocent, you will not be compensated or awarded anything for the mistake without going through yet another trial, this time civil rather than criminal. The people who put you through this ordeal will of course not pay anything out of their own purse; instead, your award, if you get one, will be bankrolled by the taxpayers.

If you are labeled guilty, you will be told the terms and duration of your kidnapping by the adjudicator. Your accommodations may be nice or harsh, depending on what "crime" you have been convicted for; you may reside in a small but well-maintained cell with a simple T.V. and nice meals, or you may reside in a violent, drug-infested hell-hole where you are summarily raped by large, burly men. Either way, the guards of your prison will generally treat you with contempt and society writ large will not shred a single tear for the heinous acts that have been committed on you.

That is what happens to people accused and then convicted of "crimes", stripped of all euphemisms. There are very few people I'd wish such a fate on. Murderers? Yes. Kidnappers? Yes. Molesters and sexual abusers? Definitely. Assault and Battery? Depends. Theft? Not really. Viewing or creating objectionable art without actually harming anyone in any way? Uh, no.

In reality, you're the one who has taken the "hugely objectionable" position. It is a very, very serious proposition to claim something ought to be "outlawed". Do not take it lightly. You are quite literally claiming that people ought to be kidnapped and imprisoned for a lengthy period of time, and quite possibly beaten, raped, blackmailed, extorted, and/or murdered, depending on the circumstances.

Depending on what you are requesting should be outlawed, you should expect someone to raise an eyebrow at you and openly object.

[1] Just to establish what the word Outlaw typically meant historically, it means that you are going to strip someone of their legal privileges and forcibly cast them out of society and into the wild; sort of like deporting someone without actually sending them anywhere. I understand you probably didn't mean that literally; what you really probably meant was to make said material a "crime" to create and possess, sort of like actual child pornography.
[2] This is not really an attempt to bash the voluntary participants of the legal system, though: given that they market themselves as promising to give you a speedy trial, and those that don't get a quick one tend to get shorter actual jail sentences due to credit given for time already served, and they get a lot of flak in the press for that, and the fact that there are so many crimes in the books by now that the courts and jails overflowing as it is, they tend to want low profile cases to go as fast as possible

FelixG:

Sozac:
While drawing and doing aren't exactly the same, which is obvious, haven't we sort of collectively decided as a species that this kind of thought and expression is pretty harmful.

We as a species have decided exactly the opposite.

if "thought and expression" was harmful we wouldn't have any violent movies, games, books, stories ect. Besides, Thought is very rarely a bad thing. Its when those thoughts become actions is when there is a problem.

And it sets a good precedent. Because if they got away with this what is to stop them on the next moral crusade? What would be next? Standard porn? Violence in television? Violence in games? Cursing in movies? If one bit of expression if under attack, and no one stands up to it because they think its distasteful, who will stand up when something you enjoy comes under attack?

Just because we find it distasteful the man hasn't hurt a single person. So he is as likely a pedophile as a person who plays Gears of War is a violent murderer. So what should he be punished for if he hasn't hurt a single person and hasn't even tried to hurt a person. The items in his possession weren't even used to hurt someone in the past (Aka real pictures)?

And for me personally it is horribly depressing that someone would say that just to play it safe something should be banned when they have jack all proof that is is harmful, well there is no conclusive proof that violent games don't cause violent individuals so lets ban them too, or anything else we happen not to like. These are the people holding the world back. I need to go drink now.

You make a strong argument, but I believe there is a difference between child pornography and violence in this regards. It's pornography, which is made for sexual stimulation. There is nothing artistically important, it's only purpose is sexual. This isn't Lolita (the book). But yeah, Gears of War may be considered violence pornography, it sort of gets away with it by making them mindless aliens. A lot of these games have started taking it too far by making decoys like terrorists and aliens to justify morally how happy it makes our primal instinct to kill things. I think Yahtzee wrote about this and why zombies work, but the point is, we might want to examine all the violence stuff just as carefully.

Also, you can't use that slippery slope fallacy with the whole "What would be next?" thing. There is no proof that any limitations on potentially harmful pornography would ever lead to reducing swearing in movies. That is just ridiculous. There will probably be a more tests of how thoughts and pornography influence our actions.

My gut tells me banning it is safer. Your gut obviously tells you something different. I may not have definite proof, but neither do you (unless you absolutely do which would be helpful), and that's when our guts decide for us. If I had definite proof against my gut, I would tentatively go with it. My mind is undecided really, but when pressed, that's when I gotta think with my heart and decide. And I'm naturally inclined to favor the more conservative outlook on this matter. You shouldn't be horribly depressed that people with different experiences have different reasons for different feelings because there is much worse stuff to be depressed over. I don't know if you want a justification with my exact personal experiences.

But to summarize, anything that is boiled down to how we're born and our natural humanity isn't always very good (Lord of the Flies-ish). My common sense tells me that because the action is bad how is something as similar as a drawing of the action supposed be the opposite. Since there is no decisive truism on causation for this matter, and pedophilia is caused biologically (it's their nature), I would rather not trust something harmful and innate.

Also, while you seem to justify your side by saying that we are only holding the world back. It's really all about phrasing. I could easily justify it in my own mind by believing that people like you want to unleash on the world all the bad and downright evil parts of human nature that we are trying to protect it from. But yeah, it's just phrasing really.

NuclearShadow:

Eri:

NuclearShadow:

Somebody likes to look at those perverse drawings.

You should probably keep that smart tongue of yours to yourself instead of flaming me and adding nothing to the thread.

Actually it was very much a on topic post and a response to you. This sort of material should be outlawed as it is depreciating children in sexual acts. It isn't for artistic value but instead for sexual gratification from the idea of children in sexual encounters.

In other words people are going to jack off to this fiction. I don't see how that hurts other people.

NuclearShadow:

The fact that someone would not only seem to defend it but also suggest it's legality to be spread certainly is a red flag.

You don't have to like something to think it shouldn't be banned.

DjinnFor:
This might stir up some controversy. But that's okay, it needs to be said anyways.

NuclearShadow:
This sort of material should be outlawed as it is depreciating children in sexual acts. It isn't for artistic value but instead for sexual gratification from the idea of children in sexual encounters.

Outlawed?

"I don't think that word means what you think it means" is, I think, an appropriate phrase to quote here.

Let me walk you through the procedure of what happens when someone is suspected and then convicted of a "crime", so that you can appreciate the gravity of the statement you just made.

-snippity snip snip-

That is what happens to people accused and then convicted of "crimes", stripped of all euphemisms. There are very few people I'd wish such a fate on. Murderers? Yes. Kidnappers? Yes. Molesters and sexual abusers? Definitely. Assault and Battery? Depends. Theft? Not really. Viewing or creating objectionable art without actually harming anyone in any way? Uh, no.

In reality, you're the one who has taken the "hugely objectionable" position. It is a very, very serious proposition to claim something ought to be "outlawed". Do not take it lightly. You are quite literally claiming that people ought to be kidnapped and imprisoned for a lengthy period of time, and quite possibly beaten, raped, blackmailed, extorted, and/or murdered, depending on the circumstances.

Depending on what you are requesting should be outlawed, you should expect someone to raise an eyebrow at you and openly object.

Sir or madam, you've just put forth an extremely good explanation. Your description of what happens to 'criminals' should be used to inform our youths in high schools, as well as less educated folk.

I also find it completely ridiculous that people could think such actions make one wholly susceptible to this traumatic and frankly overblown, overused process.

Like i already said i nthe other thread, this is a win for common sense. Drawn lolicon/shota hentais hurt noone. I'd even argue that denying pedophiles access to material that can satify their urges without hurting anyone could be a bad idea. If they have no way left, some of them could turn to criminal ways...

Now if only they would do the same for drawings of big breasted women.

misterprickly:
Now if only they would do the same for drawings of big breasted women.

Are those illegal in Sweden. It might help explain the pedophilia.

I'm sorry. That was a shitty joke, but seriously what you said doesn't make any sense.

-faceplams then facedesks-

BrotherRool:
From the article, it does sound

Lumber Barber:
Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

"Because letting homosexual people bum each other makes them even more homosexual! Burn the sinners!"

Wait, what...?

BrotherRool:
I wanted to bring you in again because I found research that suggests that exposure to child pornography actually does lead to an increase in child molesting. The research is not fully conclusive but I haven't found any studies that suggest it would decrease sexual urges

One of the studies was from 1965.

About the correlation between sexual assault of women and pornography: perhaps a more "hardcore" rapist will have an increased desire to search for that kind of violent imagery compared to the "average" rapist?

I mean, someone who is violent will not become more violent for playing videogames. Simply they will try to seek more violent games than the average gamer. Am I right? Because correlation does not imply causation.

ElPatron:

BrotherRool:
From the article, it does sound

Lumber Barber:
Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

"Because letting homosexual people bum each other makes them even more homosexual! Burn the sinners!"

Wait, what...?

Yeah I think 'Wait, what...?' is pretty big there. We're talking about people who want to have sex with children. It's an unfortunate position to be in and crippling in life but also unallowable, why do you feel that I have a position on homosexuality? I'm sorry I've caused you offence, but I neither think nor believe that. My position was with activities that are wrong (ie being angry, having sex with children) and about whether relief actually helps cure those things. Scientists don't seem to have a clear conclusion either way and their have to be numerous studies in favour of both sides. I don't feel homosexuality is applicable because it's not wrong and so there would be no need to prevent yourself. If expressing your feelings makes you want to express them more, then whats the problem with that? If you have a problem with it, then I'm sorry, but I don't see any problem with people who have sex (potentially) wanting to have more sex

BrotherRool:
I wanted to bring you in again because I found research that suggests that exposure to child pornography actually does lead to an increase in child molesting. The research is not fully conclusive but I haven't found any studies that suggest it would decrease sexual urges

One of the studies was from 1965.

About the correlation between sexual assault of women and pornography: perhaps a more "hardcore" rapist will have an increased desire to search for that kind of violent imagery compared to the "average" rapist?

I mean, someone who is violent will not become more violent for playing videogames. Simply they will try to seek more violent games than the average gamer. Am I right? Because correlation does not imply causation.[/quote]

Yes but these studies weren't statistical studies but controlled experiments with forced exposure, although correlation doesn't imply causation here, it is stronger than statistical data internally and definitely stronger than no evidence altogether. The statistical studies we've found so far have been much more supportive of the counter-hypothesis, but those are a lot more open to problems with correlation.

It would be incorrect to take any position on this with adequate data and at the moment we've come to the conclusion that there just isn't any kind of scientific consensus either way, if you feel the allegations are false we would genuinely love for you to provide us with some kind of decisive study. One of the people has a lot of contact with peadophiles and many of the people she speaks to says they find pornography helps, so a conclusive study that shows this would be the case would help put her mind at rest a lot.

BrotherRool:
I don't feel homosexuality is applicable because it's not wrong

I was hoping you would see where I was getting at.

Homosexuality used to be considered "wrong" and even illegal in many countries. Just like pedophilia, it's something you can't control.

BrotherRool:
Yes but these studies weren't statistical studies but controlled experiments with forced exposure

I don't trust those kind of results. If I was forced to be exposed to "let the bodies hit the floor" and violent imagery I'd go nuts in no time.

Wait, what?

"exposure to child pornography actually does lead to an increase in child molesting."

Controlled environment? Child molesting? Forced exposure?

I really hope I am misunderstanding something, because if I got that right there are a few "scientists" that require an urgent lobotomy.

ElPatron:

BrotherRool:
I don't feel homosexuality is applicable because it's not wrong

I was hoping you would see where I was getting at.

Homosexuality used to be considered "wrong" and even illegal in many countries. Just like pedophilia, it's something you can't control.

Yes but the point I was making is this is something that's never going to change. It's never going to be okay to have sex with children and it's always going to be in societies best interests to prevent this from happening, which is completely different from homosexuality.

And this helps. Perhaps whats confusing me so much is why everyone seems to be taking a side here. This isn't a moral issue. Either giving in to partial cravings increases the desire to be satisifed overall, or relieving the tension through acceptable stimuli that aren't the unacceptable at relieves the tension. Where's the contention here? Okay I can see that some people would naturally assume the one way and all I was doing was challenging that assumption, which turned out to be a valid challenge. But then once we've realised we've got to rely on something better than just intuition why haven't we done that? There doesn't appear to be scientific consensus, no single study is going to prove this one way or the other, but a proper scientific study, conducted by people in the profession is still better than people saying 'yeah but that studies not conclusive'

Okay I agree, I'm actually of the opinion that the studies weren't conclusive. But that doesn't validate the opposite position one iota either, you can (and should) challenge them, but unless you've presented some evidence, you should be even less allowed to hold the other opinion because never mind being a chance of coincidence in correlation, thats a whole lot better than a completely unsubstantiated opinion.

I mean apart from some really iffy studies connecting the decline in rape for the last 20 years with the internet and thus availability of pornography (and ignoring the even steeper decline of murder, assault, mugging etc over exactly the same period) the only studies we've found supporting pornography alleviates molesting, have also been put forward by me. Why haven't other people done this?

BrotherRool:
Snip

From http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/summary_report/chapter2/en/index2.html

Japan also had the lowest level of sexual violence at 6%, with the highest figure of 59% being reported in Ethiopia.

also

The proportion of women who had ever suffered physical violence by a male partner ranged from 13% in Japan to 61% in provincial Peru.

Thought those stats were interesting as far as the argument porn makes you violent. I wouldn't use these stats as a valid argument that porn does not make you violent, but to point out the futility of trying to study what makes people violent (sexual or not) in the first place.

Most of what is written out there, even the peer reviewed stuff, is extremely biased and grounded in little more then educated guess work by people who have very small reporting pools (self report on sexual deviance is next to 0% on the best of days).

NiPah:

BrotherRool:
Snip

From http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/summary_report/chapter2/en/index2.html

Japan also had the lowest level of sexual violence at 6%, with the highest figure of 59% being reported in Ethiopia.

also

The proportion of women who had ever suffered physical violence by a male partner ranged from 13% in Japan to 61% in provincial Peru.

Thought those stats were interesting as far as the argument porn makes you violent. I wouldn't use these stats as a valid argument that porn does not make you violent, but to point out the futility of trying to study what makes people violent (sexual or not) in the first place.

Most of what is written out there, even the peer reviewed stuff, is extremely biased and grounded in little more then educated guess work by people who have very small reporting pools (self report on sexual deviance is next to 0% on the best of days).

The problem with snipping me is so many people have quoted me at so many points in the discussion, I can't place where the quote comes from :D

But thank you for the study, it is interesting and valuable. I think the position I'm at at the moment is that there's just no way for anyone to reasonably draw any conclusion either way. Which is really poor because it means the people making legislature the world over basically have a 50% chance of making laws that are actively making this situation worse. But what can you do about it? It's a scarring topic and it's tricky even to get accurate figures for the level of violence that occurred even this year in one country, how can people accurately identify very particular causes when we can't even monitor that precisely?

BrotherRool:

The problem with snipping me is so many people have quoted me at so many points in the discussion, I can't place where the quote comes from :D

But thank you for the study, it is interesting and valuable. I think the position I'm at at the moment is that there's just no way for anyone to reasonably draw any conclusion either way. Which is really poor because it means the people making legislature the world over basically have a 50% chance of making laws that are actively making this situation worse. But what can you do about it? It's a scarring topic and it's tricky even to get accurate figures for the level of violence that occurred even this year in one country, how can people accurately identify very particular causes when we can't even monitor that precisely?

Just wanted to let you know BrotherRool, that following this thread you have done a good job of sticking to evidence and looking at this with impartiality. What's funny is this discussion got me interested with all the studies of pedophilia and how this is still an ambiguous topic in the scientific community. But the funny part is I went on youtube and watched a To catch a predator snip and decided to try and voice the minority opinion in the comments on there saying like "Wow, this is humiliating. They may be pedos, but they need psychiatric help, not this." I got so many raging replies with things like "Cut their balls off!" While this is a bit off topic from the whole "does pornography help argument" since these guys actually were going to commit a crime, the point is I am just glad the Escapist community is filled with much more intelligent, well thought out discussion on both sides.

Sozac:

Just wanted to let you know BrotherRool, that following this thread you have done a good job of sticking to evidence and looking at this with impartiality. What's funny is this discussion got me interested with all the studies of pedophilia and how this is still an ambiguous topic in the scientific community. But the funny part is I went on youtube and watched a To catch a predator snip and decided to try and voice the minority opinion in the comments on there saying like "Wow, this is humiliating. They may be pedos, but they need psychiatric help, not this." I got so many raging replies with things like "Cut their balls off!" While this is a bit off topic from the whole "does pornography help argument", considering these guys actually were going to commit a crime, the point is I am just glad the Escapist community is filled with much more intelligent, well thought out discussion on either side.

Thanks I really do appreciate that, and it's kind of you, I'm afraid I was getting a bit raggedy at points. You're complete right about the community, the most impressive thing, which has been really amazing is how everyone wants this to work for everyone involved, instead of just condemning blindly and refusing to empathise.

Sozac:
I went on youtube

First mistake right there. You went to youtube comments for a serious topic and presented a minority viewpoint. Everyone knows 50% of youtube comments are from little boys pretending to be old enough to use youtube. 40% are from boys pretending to be girls. And the final 10% are from the rational and intelligent people of both genders. Seriously, the fuck did you expect to happen?

BrotherRool:

ElPatron:

BrotherRool:
I don't feel homosexuality is applicable because it's not wrong

I was hoping you would see where I was getting at.

Homosexuality used to be considered "wrong" and even illegal in many countries. Just like pedophilia, it's something you can't control.

Yes but the point I was making is this is something that's never going to change. It's never going to be okay to have sex with children and it's always going to be in societies best interests to prevent this from happening, which is completely different from homosexuality.

If I live until the year 3012 and pedophilia is legal in the western world by then can I show your tombstone my tongue and go "nhaa-nhaa-nhaaaaa"?

Although by then I don't know if I would be able to do anything besides that...

I quite enjoy pancakes... savor the flavor!

Congratulations Sweden. You have won me over. If the US falls apart, I know where I'm moving.

Reptiloid:

Enthuril:
Also, just to point out specifics, using the term Paedophiles to refer to sex offenders is horrifyingly incorrect. Paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to children, which is not a sex offence in itself. Paraphilias as they are known aren't chosen actions and are related to sexual attraction whereas sex offences are the actual abusing of a child or looking at child pornography, which I think we'll all agree is a choice. Strangely enough because of my time on the internet I've known several paedophiles and the regular consensus is that they're against having sexual intercourse or anything similar with children because it harms the child, and the majority that I've spoken to in fact dislike the fact that they're paedophiles.

FINALLY, someone sensible who doesn't just go with uninformed masses, screaming their heads off about how sick and wrong it is, making ridiculous claims with no grounding in reality that all pedophiles are somehow rapists and murderers...

+1 faith in humanity, thank you Sir!

I'm kind of getting sick of all the people who think that, and only on the internet can you actually stand up and say something about it without being accused of being one of them. Though, I'm not sure that sir was the right word for me.

ElPatron:

If I live until the year 3012 and pedophilia is legal in the western world by then can I show your tombstone my tongue and go "nhaa-nhaa-nhaaaaa"?

Although by then I don't know if I would be able to do anything besides that...

Yes you can :D
There have been periods of history where it was acceptable, ancient Greece most notably, but I don't think it can ever be good for society because it's never going to be possible to sure that the children are giving informed meaningful consent, and it's not right to have sex without the consent of the other person

The U.S. Supreme Court (back when it behaved somewhat rationally.....in 2001) ruled on the same issue the same way. Not sure why people here think the law is different in the U.S.

Respects for those Swedish guys for being more open minded then, oh say...The Council

Enthuril:

Buretsu:

Crono1973:
There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

It is, however the general public rarely makes a distinction. Which is sad within itself, because one is something that could actually be considered quite natural and part of our instincts and the other isn't.

I REALLY hope you are refering to PEDOPHILIA. But anyway, what makes you think that one "could actually be considered quite natural and part of our instincts and the other isn't."? I love how people try to define "natural" and part of OUR (whose?) instincts in base of what THEY like. I think they are natural, normal and part of our instincts.

Both pedophilia and ephebophilia are natural and part of OUR instincts. Our=we human race.

Do people like you actually believe that what YOU like is the rule to measure all? When you say "part of OUR instincs", who are you refering to? Who is the "US"? "Normal" people? Straight people? What is normal? What is straight?

Really, cant you see anything wrong in your words? Dont you see that you are implying that there exist something that is "normal" and "natural"?

I hate this defenders of the status quo, normality and "natural instincts". Your kind of people divide the world between "normals" (ephebophiles, heterosexuals) and "abnormals" (pedophiles, queers).

Enthuril:

It's more like... People need to realise that paedophiles aren't what they are out of choice, but are instead born and develop that way. People who actually go out of their way to have sex and such with children are deserving of such harsh punishments, but I feel it depends on the severity of it. For example, if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction and unless the person was not consenting they are less in the wrong than someone who has had sex with a prepubescent child.

"if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction "

I remark this words: "it is a more NATURAL sexual attraction". Great way of judging you have there. Lets punish the "unnatural", and celebrate the "natural", doesnt matter if they are just artificial constructs made by some people.

God your words make me cringe.

You speak like a catholic conservative. You use the same words they use. You use the same ideas they use. You talk of "natural", of "normal" of "natural sexual attractions". Of normality versus abnormality. What is a "natural sexual attraction"? What is a "normal" sexual orientation? Some people would say that homosexuality is abnormal, other ephebophilia, other pedophilia, other heterosexuality and so on... Who defines what is a "natural sexual attraction"? You?

melefnom:

I REALLY hope you are refering to PEDOPHILIA. But anyway, what makes you think that one "could actually be considered quite natural and part of our instincts and the other isn't."? I love how people try to define "natural" and part of OUR (whose?) instincts in base of what THEY like. I think they are natural, normal and part of our instincts.

Both pedophilia and ephebophilia are natural and part of OUR instincts. Our=we human race.

Do people like you actually believe that what YOU like is the rule to measure all? When you say "part of OUR instincs", who are you refering to? Who is the "US"? "Normal" people? Straight people? What is normal? What is straight?

Really, cant you see anything wrong in your words? Dont you see that you are implying that there exist something that is "normal" and "natural"?

I hate this defenders of the status quo, normality and "natural instincts". Your kind of people divide the world between "normals" (ephebophiles, heterosexuals) and "abnormals" (pedophiles, queers).

melefnom:

"if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction "

I remark this words: "it is a more NATURAL sexual attraction". Great way of judging you have there. Lets punish the "unnatural", and celebrate the "natural", doesnt matter if they are just artificial constructs made by some people.

God your words make me cringe.

You speak like a catholic conservative. You use the same words they use. You use the same ideas they use. You talk of "natural", of "normal" of "natural sexual attractions". Of normality versus abnormality. What is a "natural sexual attraction"? What is a "normal" sexual orientation? Some people would say that homosexuality is abnormal, other ephebophilia, other pedophilia, other heterosexuality and so on... Who defines what is a "natural sexual attraction"? You?

You miss the point that I was making. I never said something unnatural is wrong in itself, that's quite foolish to say as most of the things we do right now are unnatural. You're saying this using a computer, that's unnatural and should totally be banned. See what I mean? A ridiculous thing to say in itself. However, when talking about sexual acts that actually harm someone a line should be drawn between what's natural and what isn't - a measure of what a 'normal' person would do. Now, I'm totally in favour of bringing the legal age down to an age where the majority can be said to be sexually mature enough, which to my knowledge is around 13 or 14, but anything below that is wrong on the basis that it actually harms a child. Also, a normal sexual attraction would be something that can be observed to happen commonly within nature in this case. For example, homosexuality is somewhat abnormal in itself. However, this doesn't make it wrong, I think I'm one of the least qualified people to judge that. And anyone who would happily defend the actual sexual abusing of a child is definitely not normal, or I'd wager not entirely sane as we have enough proof of how much it can harm the child.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.