Support NeoGAF

[nVidiot_Whore]

Someone who accepts that they are a pedophile doesn't think liking children is wrong,

Again.. making logical leaps, and not really understanding the term. Pedophilia isn't something to "accept", it's an attraction. "Children arouse me" = pedophile.

In the example I provided earlier.. I have friend's girlfriends/wives who arouse me. This isn't some choice I make.. I see their tight bodies and blood starts to flow.

they only think its wrong to act on it because they would go to jail/get in trouble.

No, unless you are a sociopath, you know the difference between right and wrong, and care about hurting people. So a pedophile could "not act" simply because they don't want to hurt anyone.

I don't not have sex with my friends girlfriends/wives simply because they'll kick my ass.. I don't come on to them because I think it's wrong, and hurtful to my friends.

Because I'm not a sociopath, I care about hurting people. I don't see how someone who gets boners for children would automatically be a sociopath, and not care about hurting people... and I don't fault people simply for what they get boners for.. as I don't see how that can be in any way controlled.

Actually seeking out the material that gives them a boner? In this case.. that violates other morals, so is wrong.

If they didn't feel that way, then why let them play with child dolls in sexual ways and view material that gets them off?

And I'm not even sure where you are going with this.. I personally don't think it's a great idea to encourage anyone to view sexual material of children, dolls, etc. If someone said that, argue against them.. but I'm not discussing that personally.

The bottom line is.. we need to worry more about people who are sociopaths, or who have anti-social tendencies. People that seem to not really CARE about anyone.

Because it doesn't really matter what those people get boners for.. they are the dangerous ones.

A lot of child molestation comes from non-pedophiles, as stated above.. and many have experienced. An adult wanting children to perform sex acts on them, while they view pornography that features adults.. is not necessarily attracted to the children they are molesting. So they'd never have to admit to being a "pedophile".. no "thought crime" right? Only turned on by adults?

No.. it is the act of molestation that is wrong whether they are attracted to the kids, or just using them to please the person.

 

[kid ness]

I have a very close friend (lets call him Al) who I've known for about eight years. We chill all the time, go to ball games, play pool, etc. Al's a great guy, one of the most compassionate and friendly people you'll ever meet.

Last year we both worked at a summer camp. Al had worked there for a while before me and I was back from school & didn't have anything to do that summer, and I had gone there as a kid so I figured I'd try it out. It was incredibly rewarding -- the kids were hilarious and I felt like I was making a difference in their lives. Although it wasn't all peaches and cream, I generally enjoyed working as a camp counselor to chill with my friends (other counselors), play games with the kids like basketball, and to see the kids progress. Al, who worked at the same camp gave me tips, helped me when I didn't know how to deal with a particular kid who was giving me trouble, and showed me the ropes.

One morning we're getting to the campground and one of my co-counselors comes up to me.
him: "Did you hear about the counselor who was arrested?"
me: "nah man, what happened?"
him: "apparently some counselor got arrested for child pornography. the feds raided his apartment, and they found like hundreds of videos."
me: "holy shit, who was it?"
him: "Al".

I was shocked, confused, dumbfounded. I took the next few days off from work to sort things out. I re-evaluated the value of my trust, who I should trust, if I could ever trust anyone again, etc.

Al had worked as a schoolteacher at an elementary school for a few years, so the headlines were all over the news. My initial reaction was that he's a monster, just another sick pedophile. I had never suspected anything like this from him; he'd always been such a great friend and a nice guy, as well as one of the most sociable people you'd ever meet.

The majority of Al's friends were disgusted, and his girlfriend left him. Most of his social life was ruined. Obviously, I was disgusted too, nobody wants to be associated with a pedophile. But after weeks and weeks of coming to grips with my emotions I chose to support him through the process. I wrote a letter to the judge, talked to him on the phone, went to the sentencing.

He was a completely different person -- beaten down, depressed. Not an ounce of the happiness he routinely displayed before the arrest, but still the same compassion.

Al's now in prison on a 5+year sentence. Every day I struggle with the decision of whether or not I should still support him. If I'm married when he comes out of jail, I don't want him to meet my wife. If I have kids, I wouldn't want him to meet my kids. Although there's no evidence that he actually physically abused a kid, viewing hundreds of videos certainly is disgusting and twisted; I don't want to imagine how many kids were abused, and how many lives were ruined result of his selfish actions to fuel the market of child pornography.

Every day I struggle with my decision to support him. I'm still not sure. I'm definitely hoping that pedophilia is a disorder for his sake. I'm sorry for the long post, but I needed to vent.

 

[Uchip]

Midgets don't look like kids, however there is a lot of "petite girls" porn out there, where they really do manage to look like kids despite being +18.

"petite" girls still have curves, this is completely unrelated to pedophilia
its not a bad look for sure

 

[Delio]

Midgets don't look like kids, however there is a lot of "petite girls" porn out there, where they really do manage to look like kids despite being +18.

Lot of male twink porn like that as well.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

"petite" girls still have curves, this is completely unrelated to pedophilia
its not a bad look for sure

I saw a vid on StileProject once that was a girl that was beyond petite.. probably even had some disorder.. zero up top, including small nipples.. and no curves to speak of.

Was outright shocking.. aka.. "WTF? StileProject get hacked?"

 

[Throavium]

I have a very close friend (lets call him Al) who I've known for about eight years. We chill all the time, go to ball games, play pool, etc. Al's a great guy, one of the most compassionate and friendly people you'll ever meet.

Last year we both worked at a summer camp. Al had worked there for a while before me and I was back from school & didn't have anything to do that summer, and I had gone there as a kid so I figured I'd try it out. It was incredibly rewarding -- the kids were hilarious and I felt like I was making a difference in their lives. Although it wasn't all peaches and cream, I generally enjoyed working as a camp counselor to chill with my friends (other counselors), play games with the kids like basketball, and to see the kids progress. Al, who worked at the same camp gave me tips, helped me when I didn't know how to deal with a particular kid who was giving me trouble, and showed me the ropes.

One morning we're getting to the campground and one of my co-counselors comes up to me.
him: "Did you hear about the counselor who was arrested?"
me: "nah man, what happened?"
him: "apparently some counselor got arrested for child pornography. the feds raided his apartment, and they found like hundreds of videos."
me: "holy shit, who was it?"
him: "Al".

I was shocked, confused, dumbfounded. I took the next few days off from work to sort things out. I re-evaluated the value of my trust, who I should trust, if I could ever trust anyone again, etc.

Al had worked as a schoolteacher at an elementary school for a few years, so the headlines were all over the news. My initial reaction was that he's a monster, just another sick pedophile. I had never suspected anything like this from him; he'd always been such a great friend and a nice guy, as well as one of the most sociable people you'd ever meet.

The majority of Al's friends were disgusted, and his girlfriend left him. Most of his social life was ruined. Obviously, I was disgusted too, nobody wants to be associated with a pedophile. But after weeks and weeks of coming to grips with my emotions I chose to support him through the process. I wrote a letter to the judge, talked to him on the phone, went to the sentencing.

He was a completely different person -- beaten down, depressed. Not an ounce of the happiness he routinely displayed before the arrest, but still the same compassion.

Al's now in prison on a 5+year sentence. Every day I struggle with the decision of whether or not I should still support him. If I'm married when he comes out of jail, I don't want him to meet my wife. If I have kids, I wouldn't want him to meet my kids. Although there's no evidence that he actually physically abused a kid, viewing hundreds of videos certainly is disgusting and twisted; I don't want to imagine how many kids were abused, and how many lives were ruined result of his selfish actions to fuel the market of child pornography.

Every day I struggle with my decision to support him. I'm still not sure. I'm definitely hoping that pedophilia is a disorder for his sake. I'm sorry for the long post, but I needed to vent.

Very heavy and interesting to read, I couldn't imagine how I would deal with such a situation.

 

[akira28]

Every day I struggle with my decision to support him. I'm still not sure. I'm definitely hoping that pedophilia is a disorder for his sake. I'm sorry for the long post, but I needed to vent.

God bless you man. Really. I don't know that I could do it. But maybe. But its a good thing you do, I think.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Its both. I think the issue is whether or not the relationship can result in a lasting partnership.

With a gay couple, neither one is going to stop being gay so the relationship can last forever.

With a pedophile and child, the child won't stay a child so the pedophile will eventually move onto younger pastures.

 

[cutmeamango]

You're saying being gay is a choice and that is a very ignorant thing to say.

I said it has been linked with hormonal balance, but generally it is a choice commitment. I do have gay friends that managed to have relationships (and sex) with girls (hence my view). Yet they have "commited" to being homosexual only.
I do know there are people that have homosexual preferences since early childhood due to whatever form and causes it might be, but society and rationalization allow (pressure?) to some extent the contortion of said neurological/biological traits.
And if you always had said preference, you know it better than me, and thankfully you were born in an age that you are allowed to be who you are.

I may have been bland with my words in that statement, and I apologize, it's not like I have the notion that homosexuality is a mere deviation.

 

[Orayn]

"petite" girls still have curves, this is completely unrelated to pedophilia
its not a bad look for sure

Some of them push it harder than others, though. Hell, a 20 year old friend of mine could easily be mistaken for 13 at first glance.

Interesting case: A guy got brought up on child porn charges for having a DVD of Lupe Fuentes, a pornographic actress who was 18 at the time the DVD was shot, but registers as being in the middle of puberty according to the Tanner scale for sexual development. Fuentes actually took a cross-country flight and showed up in court to present her birth records and get the guy off the hook.

Link hereabouts.

 

[Koodo]

I remember a friend in psychology telling me about this. It seems entirely plausible, though I don't think it accounts for every person labelled as a pedophile. I'm going to guess some acts of pedophilia are committed by sociopaths, whereas the rest are committed by those succumbing to their sexual desires.

There's a bit of sympathy to be had with the latter group because they likely were born that way and can't control how they think. It's not like they woke up one day and randomly decided to attack children, like the former group might do. That being said, everyone is in control of their actions, and sex with children is immoral, so regardless of how natural a pedophile's urges might be, it is a crime.

 

[Londa]

No, I'm making a point about you wanting people to go to jail despite not having committed any crimes. I tried to use a little irony and a played-out argument from earlier in the thread to accomplish this.

Acting on homosexuality isn't a crime. Acting on pedophilia is a crime. There is a difference.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Every day I struggle with my decision to support him. I'm still not sure. I'm definitely hoping that pedophilia is a disorder for his sake. I'm sorry for the long post, but I needed to vent.

Man.. that's brutal.

IMO, he lacks a certain moral fiber.. he had videos depicting child abuse.. how can someone, even if they are attracted to kids, watch such videos? Their are kids having their worlds fucked up in those videos..

So I can understand being a bit torn in that situation.. but I'd personally not associate with even my best friend if they were caught with loads of CP or something. That's aside from the fact that he apparently sought out jobs where he'd work around children.

Could truly be a sociopath. A lot of sociopaths are nice and kind people, simply because the reality of the world is that being nice and kind is actually a beneficial way to act.. and a sociopath with half a brain will realize that, and thus may avoid harming people even more than non-sociopath.. aside from the very gross skeletons in their very dark closet.. and/or when their life turns to shit they act out.

 

[Atrus]

Every day I struggle with my decision to support him. I'm still not sure. I'm definitely hoping that pedophilia is a disorder for his sake. I'm sorry for the long post, but I needed to vent.

Don't feel bad. By possessing child pornography this acquaintance of yours is guilty in the constant re-victimization of children.

Better for him that he stays locked up until cured.

 

[LCGeek]

Midgets don't look like kids, however there is a lot of "petite girls" porn out there, where they really do manage to look like kids despite being +18.

Teen porn is based on this and some places doctor photos to ensure a more youthful look.

 

[Uchip]

Some of them push it harder than others, though. Hell, a 20 year old friend of mine could easily be mistaken for 13 at first glance.

Interesting case: A guy got brought up on child porn charges for having a DVD of Lupe Fuentes, a pornographic actress who was 18 at the time the DVD was shot, but registers as being in the middle of puberty according to the Tanner scale for sexual development. Fuentes actually took a cross-country flight and showed up in court to present her birth records and get the guy off the hook.

Link hereabouts.

petite means little, not underdeveloped
so they really are pushing the boundaries of the term there

 

[Extollere]

Well, here's my stance anyways. Pedophilia isn't a crime. Committing a crime is. Pedophilia, whether a disorder or an orientation doesn't hurt anybody, until a crime has been committed. There isn't any evidence I'm aware of that proves, or suggests, that a pedophile is more likely to commit a crime because of his or her preference than your average person is. Criminals should be punished, obviously, but people who have committed no crime should not be. SMH at those in here suggesting they should be punished regardless. Really?

Well of course, this topic includes children, and as such, responses should always be made in outrage, rather than in rationale.

 

[Broder Salsa]

"petite" girls still have curves, this is completely unrelated to pedophilia
its not a bad look for sure

Sorry if that came out wrong, I didn't mean that people who like petite girls = pedos or anything like that. But some of the petite girls do specialize in... Looking like kids and without having many curves, like "Tiny Tabby" who could easily be mistaken for a 12 year old in her pictures despite being +18.

 

[Orayn]

Acting on homosexuality isn't a crime. Acting on pedophilia is a crime. There is a difference.

I know this. I am aware of how the argument played out, I was trying to use it in a hypothetical scenario to undercut one of your points and make a funny.

petite means little, not underdeveloped
so they really are pushing the boundaries of the term there

The two can, and sometimes do coincide, though.

 

[Londa]

I know this. I am aware of how the argument played out, I was trying to use it in a hypothetical scenario to undercut one of your points and make a funny.

It failed because no way could a homosexual be thrown in jail for being gay in the year 2011 (US government law).

You just want to paint me as irrational.

 

[rvy]

It's sexual disorientation actually.

 

[Fatghost]

Disorder, because it can be treated.

By executions, mostly.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Why cant it be both?

 

[Jamesfrom818]

I don't want this to turn into a young looking porn actress thread but Amai Liu looks crazy young even for an Asian girl.

EDIT: The only reason I remember her name is because I see her work listed a lot on the streaming sites I frequent.

 

[Doctor West]

Disorder.

 

[Orayn]

It failed because no way could a homosexual be thrown in jail for being gay in the year 2011.

You just want me to look irrational.

That's because, from my perspective, you are being quite irrational. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Londa]

That's because, from my perspective, you are being quite irrational. Funny how that works, huh?

I guess I should have thought about their feelings first?

 

[Uchip]

I don't want this to turn into a young looking porn actress thread but Amai Liu looks crazy young even for an Asian girl.

*googles*
she looks deformed :S

 

[cutmeamango]

*googles*
she looks deformed :S

And I couldn't find the pics that she looks crazy young, only the pics she looks crazy.

 

[dojokun]

I'm perfectly in the clear on this subject. I'm not stupid enough to satisfy my dick once only to spend years in jail. I have reminders set up on my phone to let me know when the 18th birthdays are for some girls I know.

 

[Orayn]

I guess I should have thought about their feelings first?

Hurt all the feelings you like, I don't give a care about feelings. I just don't think people should be thrown in jail despite not having committed any crimes.

 

[Psychotext]

I have reminders set up on my phone to let me know when the 18th birthdays are for some girls I know.

That's creepy in a completely different way. Well done. lol

Spoiler

Plus of course you're obviously stating an pre-existing attraction to "underage" girls, which isn't much better...

 

[CornBurrito]

Pedophiles can be jailed for having child porn downloaded on their hard drives. So, yes I do believe that they should be jailed for feeling sexual aroused by child even tho they have never touched a child before.

The production and consumption of child porn involving real children HARMS REAL CHILDREN. Thoughts don't.

 

[dojokun]

That's creepy in a completely different way. Well done. lol

Spoiler

Plus of course you're obviously stating an pre-existing attraction to "underage" girls, which isn't much better...

Hey I don't think of them in a sexual way before they turn 18. When they turn 18 and my reminder lets me know, then I start being attracted to them.

 

[Psychotext]

The production and consumption of child porn involving real children HARMS REAL CHILDREN.

I'm a little confused by this statement, which I've seen quite a bit on the subject.

If random paedophile A puts a film up on the internet, does the viewing of said video by random paedophile B further harm the child? That is, assuming the following:

• B never goes on to harm a child directly (watching the video is enough).
• That the child who was abused never sees the video.
• B never comes into contact with the child.
• Nothing is given in return for the video.

I'm not sure where the consumption does further damage. I can fully understand in the case of where files are swapped, because in that case you need to create more to get more, but I'm not sure how it works otherwise.

Excuse my ignorance on the subject. I've just never really been able to get a handle on it.

Hey I don't think of them in a sexual way before they turn 18. When they turn 18 and my reminder lets me know, then I start being attracted to them.

That certainly explains why you mentioned that it was only "some" girls...

 

[Amibguous Cad]

The production and consumption of child porn involving real children HARMS REAL CHILDREN. Thoughts don't.

And the American Supreme Court has consistently struck down laws that criminalize looking at simulated child pornography as against the first amendment. Looking at child pornography is illegal not because it squicks us to hear about a pedophile getting his rocks off but because its production can destroy a child's life.

I'm a little confused by this statement, which I've seen quite a bit on the subject.

If random paedophile A puts a film up on the internet, does the viewing of said video by random paedophile B further harm the child? That is, assuming the following:

• B never goes on to harm a child directly (watching the video is enough).
• That the child who was abused never sees the video.
• B never comes into contact with the child.
• Nothing is given in return for the video.

I'm not sure where the consumption does further damage. I can fully understand in the case of where files are swapped, because in that case you need to create more to get more, but I'm not sure how it works otherwise.

Excuse my ignorance on the subject. I've just never really been able to get a handle on it.


That certainly explains why you mentioned that it was only "some" girls...

Well, the Court's view has always been that any kind of viewing incentivizes dissemination. It's a little less clear in the age of youtube than it is when people sell videos, but I think it still makes sense. People put stuff up to have it be viewed. People making all those youtube videos measure their success by how many people they can get to watch their stuff. It makes sense to me that even in the absence of a picture swapping system or monetary rewards that getting more views would incentivize people to put more stuff up.

 

[Figboy79]

That's actually an interesting question though.

I've seen fully matured, adult women, with the bodies of 12 year olds, and I've seen 12 year olds with the bodies of adult women.

I never actually considered what it was about the underage girl that pedophiles found appealing.

I don't think it could be the body type, because, as I stated before, there are plenty of women out there (not just a particular race, although I agree that many Japanese girls look young) that are of legal age that have that "underdeveloped" body. I imagine it must be an age thing.

I like curvy women, and I admit, that picture of Kim Kardashian in the bikini at age 14 caught me off guard. I certainly found myself confused. I mean, was it bad, because I was attracted to a body that looked like it belonged to a 20-something, despite her being much younger? I don't know. I did feel skeevy for it, that's for sure, but even if I was a single man, I can't see myself wanting to have sex with someone who was underaged, just because she looked older, but I'm not going to lie and say that a physically attractive body isn't attractive because the person is say, in high school.

To me, that's like being a straight man, but lying about someone like Brad Pitt or Denzel Washington being good looking men in their prime, because you don't want to "sound gay" or some shit. It is what it is. Attractive people are attractive. Doesn't mean I want to hop into bed with a teenager (or Denzel Washington or Brad Pitt, for that matter).

I'd lean more towards pedophilia being a disorder, though. I don't know if it can be treated or not, and I don't think it's a sexual orientation either.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I'm a little confused by this statement, which I've seen quite a bit on the subject.

If random paedophile A puts a film up on the internet, does the viewing of said video by random paedophile B further harm the child? That is, assuming the following:

• B never goes on to harm a child directly (watching the video is enough).
• That the child who was abused never sees the video.
• B never comes into contact with the child.
• Nothing is given in return for the video.

I'm not sure where the consumption does further damage. I can fully understand in the case of where files are swapped, because in that case you need to create more to get more, but I'm not sure how it works otherwise.

Excuse my ignorance on the subject. I've just never really been able to get a handle on it.


That certainly explains why you mentioned that it was only "some" girls...

I think the logic is that consumption in general promotes a market and the content creators thus have greater motivation to create more CP. At least that's the practical objection to consumption.

Some people seem to adopt a view which (no matter how terrible CP is) is unfortunately still irrational: that viewing of CP psychically, morally "injures" the original victim every time the CP is viewed even if no direct contact between viewer and victim is ever made. I think this stems from people's need for a state of vindictiveness over something that causes them too much cognitive dissonance. (i.e. the knowledge that somewhere, a bad man is looking at CP, and this is so wrong that an additional imaginary harm is created in order to have a further reason to damn the bad man for his activity.)

 

[dojokun]

That certainly explains why you mentioned that it was only "some" girls...

You can tell which girls are gonna grow up to be hot when they hit 18. If a 14 year old girl is 200 lbs the odds are pretty low. But if she's thin with a pretty face then she's probably going to be hot once she turns 18. Like when Emma Watson was 14, I knew she was going to be hot on her 18th birthay. Thin profile. Pretty face. Going to be hot. And the day she turned 18? I googled her and you know what? I was right.

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm a little confused by this statement, which I've seen quite a bit on the subject.

If random paedophile A puts a film up on the internet, does the viewing of said video by random paedophile B further harm the child? That is, assuming the following:

• B never goes on to harm a child directly (watching the video is enough).
• That the child who was abused never sees the video.
• B never comes into contact with the child.
• Nothing is given in return for the video.

I'm not sure where the consumption does further damage. I can fully understand in the case of where files are swapped, because in that case you need to create more to get more, but I'm not sure how it works otherwise.

Excuse my ignorance on the subject. I've just never really been able to get a handle on it.


That certainly explains why you mentioned that it was only "some" girls...

I am working under the assumption that people film it and post it online because their underground pedophile buddies on their underground website demand them to "share" and that sort of shit.

So consuming it may increase the demand.

 

[UraMallas]

One could easily argue homosexuality is natural as well. In various social animals there are parts of the colony/group that do not produce offspring and instead work to ensure the survival of the rest. Homosexuality in humans could easily fit this role.

In various social animals they have sex with younglings, too. 300 years ago it was okay to take 12 or 13 year old girls as wives and that still is okay in some places. Greece's elite used young boys for pleasure. Think of what was done to attractive young boys and girls before there were even rudimentary civilizations out on the wide expanse. When the strongest fucked the prettiest without regard for social norms or the stigma of rape.

My point isn't that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same but that we don't live in nature anymore. We don't shit in the woods and we don't fuck little boys. Bringing what's "natural" into consideration you'd be jacking off in your hands and slinging it at every pretty girl you saw. Shitting down your leg and wiping your itchy ass on a tree. Nature doesn't play into this debate.

 

[mantidor]

I'm a little confused by this statement, which I've seen quite a bit on the subject.

If random paedophile A puts a film up on the internet, does the viewing of said video by random paedophile B further harm the child? That is, assuming the following:

• B never goes on to harm a child directly (watching the video is enough).
• That the child who was abused never sees the video.
• B never comes into contact with the child.
• Nothing is given in return for the video.

I'm not sure where the consumption does further damage. I can fully understand in the case of where files are swapped, because in that case you need to create more to get more, but I'm not sure how it works otherwise.

Excuse my ignorance on the subject. I've just never really been able to get a handle on it.

They are part of the demand of this material, so I don't really understand why you don't see the consumption not doing damage, its the main reason the material was made in the first place. You should keep in mind is not only "random pedophile A "doing these videos, it can be other equally immoral people that are not pedophiles but see an opportunity to make money.

I think the logic is that consumption in general promotes a market and the content creators thus have greater motivation to create more CP. At least that's the practical objection to consumption.

Some people seem to adopt a view which (no matter how terrible CP is) is unfortunately still irrational: that viewing of CP psychically, morally "injures" the original victim every time the CP is viewed even if no direct contact between viewer and victim is ever made. I think this stems from people's need for a state of vindictiveness over something that causes them too much cognitive dissonance. (i.e. the knowledge that somewhere, a bad man is looking at CP, and this is so wrong that an additional imaginary harm is created in order to have a further reason to damn the bad man for his activity.)

Well I guess it can also be argued that having many viewers of such material can further damage psychologically the victim, even if the victim doesn't know. How good would any of us feel if someone videotaped our own rape and that they distributed it to many people. Even if I don't know these viewers I would feel "attacked" by them in some way.

I'm not saying this is the legal reason but I would see it that way.

 

[MetalAlien]

That's actually an interesting question though.

Unless you had an adult woman that looked exactly like Mathilda from Leon the Professional I don't think you'd be able to prove anything. There would always be someone that says the woman has slightly more curves than an actual child.

Something like that I guess.

 

[OmegaDragon]

Pedophilia, like homo/heterosexaulity, is very likely caused by brain development in utero and the early development after birth. I'm assuming both genetic and environmental factors play a role, so avoiding it will be impossible. You can't cure paedophilia. I'm not sure what can be done to help paedophiles from controlling their urges, without resorting to incarceration. Chemical castration, while an option, can some serious side effects.
Actually, 'accepting' them or at least not treating them as outcasts seems to help. In the UK and Canada convicted pedophiles have been supervised by a group of volunteers, who keep regular contact. It seems that those who were helped, as that group showed less recidivism. Of course this is limited to pedophiles who realise the harm they've done and want to better themselves.

So kid ness, support Al if you can.

BTW: However there have been cases where paedophilic interests arose after brain damage, but those are very rare. And the study on pedophilia is of course slowed down due to the taboo, as hardly anyone wants to announce he(she) is a pedophile.

 

[KHarvey16]

They are part of the demand of this material, so I don't really understand why you don't see the consumption not doing damage, its the main reason the material was made in the first place. You should keep in mind is not only "random pedophile A "doing these videos, it can be other equally immoral people that are not pedophiles but see an opportunity to make money.

Should it be illegal to possess a video of someone being murdered?

 

[06nbarnhill]

Hurt all the feelings you like, I don't give a care about feelings. I just don't think people should be thrown in jail despite not having committed any crimes.

I couldn't agree more. The last thing we need is a pedo witchhunt.

I just wish we provided more counseling and support for people with the problem before it got out of hand. I shudder to think the reaction someone would get asking for help. People are so stupid.

 

[cutmeamango]

Should it be illegal to possess a video of someone being murdered?

Depends, are you talking about a video like those kids from russia that tortured and killed a guy? Intent to produce such material.
Or one from a circuit cam that managed to film someone being murdered? Accidental production of the material.

For me possessing a quantity of the first case should be illegal, while the second should be watched.

And even more illegal by what Speevy said.

 

[Speevy]

Should it be illegal to possess a video of someone being murdered?

I...think it is if authorities are not aware the murder took place.

 

[Kai Dracon]

That's actually an interesting question though.

I've seen fully matured, adult women, with the bodies of 12 year olds, and I've seen 12 year olds with the bodies of adult women.

I never actually considered what it was about the underage girl that pedophiles found appealing.

I don't think it could be the body type, because, as I stated before, there are plenty of women out there (not just a particular race, although I agree that many Japanese girls look young) that are of legal age that have that "underdeveloped" body. I imagine it must be an age thing.

I like curvy women, and I admit, that picture of Kim Kardashian in the bikini at age 14 caught me off guard. I certainly found myself confused. I mean, was it bad, because I was attracted to a body that looked like it belonged to a 20-something, despite her being much younger? I don't know. I did feel skeevy for it, that's for sure, but even if I was a single man, I can't see myself wanting to have sex with someone who was underaged, just because she looked older, but I'm not going to lie and say that a physically attractive body isn't attractive because the person is say, in high school.

To me, that's like being a straight man, but lying about someone like Brad Pitt or Denzel Washington being good looking men in their prime, because you don't want to "sound gay" or some shit. It is what it is. Attractive people are attractive. Doesn't mean I want to hop into bed with a teenager (or Denzel Washington or Brad Pitt, for that matter).

I'd lean more towards pedophilia being a disorder, though. I don't know if it can be treated or not, and I don't think it's a sexual orientation either.

I would vote that, human sexuality being as complex as it is, we can term pedophilia a disorder and find evidence to back it up if we choose. It's a problematic area. Personally, I view the sexualized urges that lead to being attracted to children, as being an unlucky roll on the human sexuality character sheet. The individual in question has, in addition to whatever *nurture* resulted in his/her sexual turn on, gotten a rarer combination of sexual attributes which end up expressing themselves as erotic reaction to juvenile human beings.

This is the problem with playing the thought police card. Human beings are barely in control of their conscious mind as it is. So much of our own thought processes are hidden from us, and bubble up without being invoked by a rational decision or rational belief. Often, we are led to believe that we "chose" to do something when the choice had already been made for us and we're just rationalizing what we're doing after the fact.

Trying to play up pedophile paranoia into "those evil people must be punished for their VILE THOUGHTS!" is a totally unworkable scenario. It's just not practical to get into thought policing - whatever the subject, not just on the issue of pedophilia.

Part of the problem that pedophiles face, I think, is that they know what they're thinking is viewed with the most irrational hatred by most of society. Especially today, when ordinary, well adjusted adult men go around in terror of being seen standing too close to a child in public lest bystanders think they're An Evil Pedo About To Snatch And Grab.

I'd wager this is part of what drives the underground CP industry, and drives consumption of CP. When you box a person in, corner them, they tend to turn self destructive. Someone with pedophillic thoughts may very well turn into "one of those people": collecting hundreds of hours of CP, having the prototypical kiddie porn dungeon, etc, because it's not something they can even talk about to other people... ever. I'd suspect most people who've drawn the pedophile card are terrified of even paying for their own shrink and talking to a professional about it - too afraid of the information leaking or being leaked on purpose.

 

[KHarvey16]

Depends, are you talking about a video like those kids from russia that tortured and killed a guy? Intent to produce such material.
Or one from a circuit cam that managed to film someone being murdered? Accidental production of the material.

For me possessing a quantity of the first case should be illegal, while the second should be watched.

So let's say someone goes out with a camera with the intent of making a video. They kill someone and then distribute the video online. Everyone who downloads it is now a criminal? That seems rather ridiculous, and to be honest I can't imagine anyone would support such a law unless they felt they needed to do so in order to appear consistent.

I...think it is if authorities are not aware the murder took place.

Not unless you interacted with and were given it by the person who made it. If someone murdered someone else and put the video online before the cops found the body, no one would be arrested or charged with anything. Nor should they be.