ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited June 2010
Can we just define it as a psychological disorder where one is unable to get sexual satisfaction unless the stimulation occurs with the presence of a symbol of a person of age < x?
Where x can be whatever people want it to be. 15 is probably good for what most people are thinking when they think pedophile. 12 is good for what everyone else is thinking.
A mental illness is just a pattern of behaviors which deviates significantly from the norm and seriously affects a person's ability to function in society. It's a function of behavior and culture. This is why being gay was a mental disease but isn't anymore (behavior didn't change, culture did). So yes, a pattern of behavior that involves having sex with/looking at porn of people under 18 is a mental illness in our society where 18+ is not.
wfo on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited June 2010
The definition for mental illness is sort of fucked up, simply because the same thing can be illness in one context and not another, which is why I don't generally like the term unless it's something that screws with day to day functionality.
I dunno, it seems to me to be just another deviant sexuality...a rather unfortunate one for a person to have until we get virtual reality or some shit, but still. As long as a person isn't committing rape I don't see how their sexual preferences are anyone's business, no matter what they are.
You aren't going to 'cure' pedophilia any more than you're going to 'cure' homosexuality. The goal should be to reduce harm, not try to force people into an arbitrary definition of normal.
To just throw out a few random things from the Australian context, because it is relevant to the OP:
I think that we have some law on the books that creates an offence of 'using a carriage service to access child pornography'. So if you click a link, there's CP there, you're a criminal. So it's not the 'seeing it' that's a violation, it's using a carriage service to access it... Kind of like if you order some CP through the mail. Then I think there's also a crime of possession, so if you save files and store them then you're guilty of that second offense.
Fun fact: in Australia, depictions of child abuse (which is a broader term that contains the subset that is CP) are illegal whether or not a child was actually abused. What constitutes a depiction is decided by some people who have a record of bad decisions. So things like cartoon or animated pictures can be child abuse material. Also, if the person in the picture looks like they might be below 18, it can be classed as child abuse material (this is relevant because an American-published magazine has had issues banned here, despite being a highly-circulated publication of a largish organisation, which can provide documentation of the age of all its models).
Tracking every single person's digital footprints (in the EU case) is a pretty huge task. Surely they can use the knowledge of the various highly-specialised police units investigating these things to design a system that only flags people usng particular search terms. Not that there'd be that many using Google to look for their next fap-stack, but for those that do, you'd think the police would have a fairly good idea of what parameters they use.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
You would think the EU would have something better to do with there time than come up with slapstick draconian plans for regulation and control. I don't know, something along the line of fixing the economic problems, or giving us all puppies.
The sharing and copying and possessing of child porn is also considered a revictimization of the original victim by many people.
Making possession illegal is supposed to help discourage production, which necessarily involves child abuse. This is why the SCOTUS has said that virtual child porn or drawings are free speech and not illegal - no child was harmed in the making of those.
The problem arises when something like the internet exists and makes things a lot easier to share as well as a lot easier to stumble across. And also the fact that technology has advanced to the point that minor children can disseminate pictures of themselves, that they took by themselves, which is technically child porn but not a result of child abuse.
Even if no child is harmed, allowing virtual child porn doesn't seem okay to me.
Why?
Because pedophilia is a mental illness, and I don't think we should be encouraging it.
Not making virtual child porn possession criminal =/= encouraging pedophilia. It's about free speech and the reasoning behind making possession illegal.
Fun fact: in Australia, depictions of child abuse (which is a broader term that contains the subset that is CP) are illegal whether or not a child was actually abused. What constitutes a depiction is decided by some people who have a record of bad decisions. So things like cartoon or animated pictures can be child abuse material. Also, if the person in the picture looks like they might be below 18, it can be classed as child abuse material (this is relevant because an American-published magazine has had issues banned here, despite being a highly-circulated publication of a largish organisation, which can provide documentation of the age of all its models).
This has lead to hilariously awful things, like attempting (succeeding?) to ban porn with women with small breasts, since they look younger.
Shivahn on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
You would think the EU would have something better to do with there time than come up with slapstick draconian plans for regulation and control. I don't know, something along the line of fixing the economic problems, or giving us all puppies.
They tried doing something useful. It was called Copenhagen, and it failed. So now they're back to doing incredibly stupid shit.
I don't really see how it's a problem if a person wants to download and pleasure himself to digitized cp that harmed absolutely no children in the process. If it isn't harming anyone, then it shouldn't be illegal. People who want to use the law to enforce morality can go fuck themselves.
Also, "feeling uneasy" about something is a bullshit reason for any law. People used to "feel uneasy" about gay people, women waiting until after age 15 to marry, Irish people, and all other kinds of ridiculous bullshit. This isn't quite the same, primarily because cp has the very real possibility of horrific sexual abuse attached, but if a cache can be proven to be completely detached from the abuse of actual children, then whatever someone wants to do by themselves in the privacy of their own home is none of our god damn business.
Also, "feeling uneasy" about something is a bullshit reason for any law.
We have separation of church and state (well, on paper at least). Why the shit don't we have separation of morals and state? I don't want anyone to base legislation on whether something is or isn't moral.
Also, "feeling uneasy" about something is a bullshit reason for any law.
We have separation of church and state (well, on paper at least). Why the shit don't we have separation of morals and state? I don't want anyone to base legislation on whether something is or isn't moral.
Don't we do that already?
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited June 2010
It depends on your point of view. Some people think that laws are designed to bring about the most moral good. Some people think they are designed to bring about the best functioning state.
How does this work with someone appropriating an unsecured wireless network? Because the cops busting in and someone being accuised of accessing child porn is something that won't go away even if proven innocent.
I'm unsure but I had the police visit once and check my computer's IP address because someone had been accessing 'very illegal content' through someone elses router.
So I guess that's how it works, they go to your house, check your stuff, realise it's not you and check your neighbours.
What we need to do is seal the name of the accused and the accuser in those cases (actually, you could say all cases). This way the fucked up "accused but acquitted but we'll assume they were doing it" bullshit goes away, and victims are more likely to come forward since their name won't be plastered everywhere.
I believe certain countries like Germany already have a law that requires people's names to be John Doe'd after serving a sentence.
How does this work with someone appropriating an unsecured wireless network? Because the cops busting in and someone being accuised of accessing child porn is something that won't go away even if proven innocent.
I'm unsure but I had the police visit once and check my computer's IP address because someone had been accessing 'very illegal content' through someone elses router.
So I guess that's how it works, they go to your house, check your stuff, realise it's not you and check your neighbours.
Good thing they didn't find the dungeon in your basement, no smoke without fire, man. :^:
How does this work with someone appropriating an unsecured wireless network? Because the cops busting in and someone being accuised of accessing child porn is something that won't go away even if proven innocent.
I'm unsure but I had the police visit once and check my computer's IP address because someone had been accessing 'very illegal content' through someone elses router.
So I guess that's how it works, they go to your house, check your stuff, realise it's not you and check your neighbours.
Good thing they didn't find the dungeon in your basement, no smoke without fire, man. :^:
Yeah, I totally panicked until I realised they just wanted to see my computer.
After that all I had to do was keep the captives gagged until the nice policeman was done validating my IP.
The laws relating to child porn are stupid, mandatory minimums, sex offender registries are also stupid. Not having a "within X age of" exemption being the worst part.
If a pedo wants to buy loli from japan and wank in his basement, that's disgusting but it doesn't hurt anyone's kids. If someone is 19 and dating a 17 year old, that person is not a pedophile. Peeing outside a bar is not sexually assaulting anyone, it's being drunk.
The hot button around sex offenders is particularly annoying because it's really hard to debate as a politician and not like, never get voted for again ever.
Unfortunately, since everything thinks with emotions instead of rationality, we'll never see them taken down because "omg that politician wants them to be able to hide!"
When you know, the registry forces them underground in the first place
FyreWulff on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
When it comes to viewing in imagine online, isn't the viewing also technically possession?
Well I suppose if the police bust into your house and see you looking at it, but if there's no trace of it on your PC, how do you figure they'd know if you happened to see any?
If they assume that all viewing is also possession, which wouldn't surprise me considering how eager they are to monitor any sexual activity they consider deviant, if they know someone viewed something that could also be proof of temporary possession, right?
edit: Echo beat me to the punch, this is all scary shit yo
edit2: What if someone had a non-sexual image of say the Olsen Twins in a folder a long with all their actual porn on their PC? Is that file now considered child porn because of the context in which it was viewed or does the actual content of the image need to be sexual?
Wouldnt it be great to send politicians child porn so that when they open it think it's okay, they become possessors of child porn?
Unfortunately, since everything thinks with emotions instead of rationality, we'll never see them taken down because "omg that politician wants them to be able to hide!"
When you know, the registry forces them underground in the first place
The zoning laws that prevent them from living within five miles of civilization do a better job of that then the sex offender registries.
Because apparently the best way to protect children is to make sure that the people who have a history of preying on them be nigh untraceable.
Unfortunately, since everything thinks with emotions instead of rationality, we'll never see them taken down because "omg that politician wants them to be able to hide!"
When you know, the registry forces them underground in the first place
The zoning laws that prevent them from living within five miles of civilization do a better job of that then the sex offender registries.
Because apparently the best way to protect children is to make sure that the people who have a history of preying on them be nigh untraceable.
Aren't zoning laws the domain of municipal jurisdictions? If so, I'm not entirely sure how one could effectively change it given such a decentralized system of implementation.
Like I said previously, the scariest thing to me (which would be a pretty big deal with search engines tracking your searches), is that you can be imprisoned for "attempting" to access child porn.
So while people are debating "Well what if you saw a picture of it on accident but there was none on your computer"
Man you don't even have to see a picture.
You just have to follow one link, or possibly use one search term that is flagged for being related to child porn.
Yes, the zoning laws are inherently tied into the registries though. Both should be removed.
Very few things make me rage as much as US sex offender legislation.
It's bullshit too. Recently, one of the sheriff unions got mad at the OPD's union or something. Anyway, they sent out a flyer to much of Omaha with a bunch of names and pictures of sex offenders that were "on the loose" supposedly that the police had "lost track" of. They could be RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR WINDOW.
It caused a bit of a ruckus and the police passed a feelgood policy of "we'll check on sex registry guys when we're not answering calls".
The stupid thing about this? The police already knew where all these guys were. But since it's like political kryptonite, any resistance to it would have given them more of a shitstorm
And besides the fact that restricting where you can live because of past crimes that you have served time for is unconstitutional, all it really ends up doing is pushing almost all of them into the homeless shelters. It's literally "out of sight, out of mind" for a lot of people
And of course after they passed the initial law of restrictions of living near a school, they started adding more and more business and location types until there are literally cities that are impossible for them to live in, because all the zones overlap each other.
So not only has the public done stupid shit, they've re-established exile as a legal structure again.
Not only that but someone could kill a kid, get 20 years, and under the idiotic law, they could live right across the street from a school, while a guy that took a pic of him and his girlfriend when they were both 17 would be living under a bridge outside the city limits.
FyreWulff on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
I'll just say this:
Humans are the only animal that criticizes itself for being attracted to members of its species that have obviously gone through puberty and are capable of reproducing (IE: 15-16-17, etc).
It's not 'unnatural' to be attracted to them from a physical standpoint as that's how nature was made to work. Of course, sex to humans is also nth times more complex than it is among other animals, for whatever reason.
So basically I don't think it's 'strange' to think a 16 year old is attractive, though I do NOT think it's a good idea to try and go after them (unless you're around that age yourself).
That being said, being attracted to those who haven't reached that level IS unnatural as it serves no purpose and if anything prevents you from procreating which is pretty much the basis of hormone driven sex.
We still need to change the laws where the incentive is to bring the kid back alive instead of killing them.
There's a reason why when a kid disappears and is kidnapped, the police go by "we have X hours until they're dead" instead of "we have X hours until they're made to do child porn"
Smile29 got 369 signatures and is now adopted. The Data Retention Directive will now be storing search engine queries as well, to "protect the children".
When asked about more details about Smile29, the Italian MEP behind it proved with his answers that he has no idea what he is talking about, meaning he's quacking like a duck on orders from lobbyists.
Echo on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
No draw down of signatures like previously hinted at?
Posts
Where x can be whatever people want it to be. 15 is probably good for what most people are thinking when they think pedophile. 12 is good for what everyone else is thinking.
You aren't going to 'cure' pedophilia any more than you're going to 'cure' homosexuality. The goal should be to reduce harm, not try to force people into an arbitrary definition of normal.
I think that we have some law on the books that creates an offence of 'using a carriage service to access child pornography'. So if you click a link, there's CP there, you're a criminal. So it's not the 'seeing it' that's a violation, it's using a carriage service to access it... Kind of like if you order some CP through the mail. Then I think there's also a crime of possession, so if you save files and store them then you're guilty of that second offense.
Fun fact: in Australia, depictions of child abuse (which is a broader term that contains the subset that is CP) are illegal whether or not a child was actually abused. What constitutes a depiction is decided by some people who have a record of bad decisions. So things like cartoon or animated pictures can be child abuse material. Also, if the person in the picture looks like they might be below 18, it can be classed as child abuse material (this is relevant because an American-published magazine has had issues banned here, despite being a highly-circulated publication of a largish organisation, which can provide documentation of the age of all its models).
Tracking every single person's digital footprints (in the EU case) is a pretty huge task. Surely they can use the knowledge of the various highly-specialised police units investigating these things to design a system that only flags people usng particular search terms. Not that there'd be that many using Google to look for their next fap-stack, but for those that do, you'd think the police would have a fairly good idea of what parameters they use.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Not making virtual child porn possession criminal =/= encouraging pedophilia. It's about free speech and the reasoning behind making possession illegal.
Most kids kidnapped for abuse are usually killed, not filmed.
Of course, all politicians and lawmakers and so on dance around this fact, and pretend that all of it comes from like, kidnapped kids and so on.
Yeah, but let's be honest - the debate about child pornography has always been ridiculously hypocritical and stupid.
This has lead to hilariously awful things, like attempting (succeeding?) to ban porn with women with small breasts, since they look younger.
They tried doing something useful. It was called Copenhagen, and it failed. So now they're back to doing incredibly stupid shit.
I don't really see how it's a problem if a person wants to download and pleasure himself to digitized cp that harmed absolutely no children in the process. If it isn't harming anyone, then it shouldn't be illegal. People who want to use the law to enforce morality can go fuck themselves.
Also, "feeling uneasy" about something is a bullshit reason for any law. People used to "feel uneasy" about gay people, women waiting until after age 15 to marry, Irish people, and all other kinds of ridiculous bullshit. This isn't quite the same, primarily because cp has the very real possibility of horrific sexual abuse attached, but if a cache can be proven to be completely detached from the abuse of actual children, then whatever someone wants to do by themselves in the privacy of their own home is none of our god damn business.
We have separation of church and state (well, on paper at least). Why the shit don't we have separation of morals and state? I don't want anyone to base legislation on whether something is or isn't moral.
Don't we do that already?
This is apparently the first time in the history of the parliament that this happens.
I'm unsure but I had the police visit once and check my computer's IP address because someone had been accessing 'very illegal content' through someone elses router.
So I guess that's how it works, they go to your house, check your stuff, realise it's not you and check your neighbours.
I believe certain countries like Germany already have a law that requires people's names to be John Doe'd after serving a sentence.
Yeah, I totally panicked until I realised they just wanted to see my computer.
After that all I had to do was keep the captives gagged until the nice policeman was done validating my IP.
If a pedo wants to buy loli from japan and wank in his basement, that's disgusting but it doesn't hurt anyone's kids. If someone is 19 and dating a 17 year old, that person is not a pedophile. Peeing outside a bar is not sexually assaulting anyone, it's being drunk.
The hot button around sex offenders is particularly annoying because it's really hard to debate as a politician and not like, never get voted for again ever.
Unfortunately, since everything thinks with emotions instead of rationality, we'll never see them taken down because "omg that politician wants them to be able to hide!"
When you know, the registry forces them underground in the first place
Wouldnt it be great to send politicians child porn so that when they open it think it's okay, they become possessors of child porn?
The zoning laws that prevent them from living within five miles of civilization do a better job of that then the sex offender registries.
Because apparently the best way to protect children is to make sure that the people who have a history of preying on them be nigh untraceable.
I wonder how much traction they would get in the legislature for cutting off the hands of thieves.
Bernie Madoff would be a good candidate.
It makes people feel better but isn't effective.
Very few things make me rage as much as US sex offender legislation.
I'm all about feeling better.
Aren't zoning laws the domain of municipal jurisdictions? If so, I'm not entirely sure how one could effectively change it given such a decentralized system of implementation.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
So while people are debating "Well what if you saw a picture of it on accident but there was none on your computer"
Man you don't even have to see a picture.
You just have to follow one link, or possibly use one search term that is flagged for being related to child porn.
That is scary to me.
It's bullshit too. Recently, one of the sheriff unions got mad at the OPD's union or something. Anyway, they sent out a flyer to much of Omaha with a bunch of names and pictures of sex offenders that were "on the loose" supposedly that the police had "lost track" of. They could be RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR WINDOW.
It caused a bit of a ruckus and the police passed a feelgood policy of "we'll check on sex registry guys when we're not answering calls".
The stupid thing about this? The police already knew where all these guys were. But since it's like political kryptonite, any resistance to it would have given them more of a shitstorm
And of course after they passed the initial law of restrictions of living near a school, they started adding more and more business and location types until there are literally cities that are impossible for them to live in, because all the zones overlap each other.
So not only has the public done stupid shit, they've re-established exile as a legal structure again.
Not only that but someone could kill a kid, get 20 years, and under the idiotic law, they could live right across the street from a school, while a guy that took a pic of him and his girlfriend when they were both 17 would be living under a bridge outside the city limits.
Humans are the only animal that criticizes itself for being attracted to members of its species that have obviously gone through puberty and are capable of reproducing (IE: 15-16-17, etc).
It's not 'unnatural' to be attracted to them from a physical standpoint as that's how nature was made to work. Of course, sex to humans is also nth times more complex than it is among other animals, for whatever reason.
So basically I don't think it's 'strange' to think a 16 year old is attractive, though I do NOT think it's a good idea to try and go after them (unless you're around that age yourself).
That being said, being attracted to those who haven't reached that level IS unnatural as it serves no purpose and if anything prevents you from procreating which is pretty much the basis of hormone driven sex.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
There's a reason why when a kid disappears and is kidnapped, the police go by "we have X hours until they're dead" instead of "we have X hours until they're made to do child porn"
When asked about more details about Smile29, the Italian MEP behind it proved with his answers that he has no idea what he is talking about, meaning he's quacking like a duck on orders from lobbyists.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12