Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:We've had this discussion before, Mr Paedophile (Score 1) 933

"I knew as soon as I saw this discussion you guys from annabelleigh.net would be out in force."

I've been here since 2006, when Epifora (an ISP which hosted pro-paedophile websites) was cut off by Verizon. I did not come from annabelleigh.net, though I do post there occasionally.

"I asked you last time we had a discussion how you could claim that most paedophiles don't really want to have sex with children and you didn't respond."

There are a myriad of ethical, social and legal reasons to avoid sex with children. I avoid sex with children for the same (or similar) reasons that most men don't walk up to a woman in the street and start groping her. Why is that so difficult to understand?

"Straight people download porn about having sex with adults of the opposite sex then they go out and do it, or at least attempt it; the same can be said of gay people with the caveat that it's adults of the same sex. Why would paedophiles view images (real or simulated) and then not want to have sex with children?"

Your argument is illogical, because there is nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults. The same cannot be said for sex with children, which is presumably one of the reasons why most child porn viewers don't molest children.

"I saw your post above where you cherry picked some studies that failed to show a link between viewing images and desire to have sex with children but we all know that if you just limit yourself to a few studies you can prove any point."

Okay. Can you find any studies with contrary findings?

"Rather than try to depict yourself as the victim of politicians playing some power game with your fantasies, isn't it really the case that sex with children (real or imagined) is all about power?"

Paedophilic fantasies are not typically based upon a desire for power; I actually like the idea of being controlled by a child (anything can happen in a fantasy, it doesn't need to be realistic). Many child molesters abuse children because they have a desire for power, but those offenders are rarely paedophilic.

There is little point in trying to build theories about something of which you have no knowledge.

"Even if you limit yourself to virtual images of children I find it very weird that you'd come out in public and defend what's essentially a rape fantasy."

A fantasy is a fantasy, and nobody has any right to police it.

Comment Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score 4, Informative) 933

"Arguably, banning the drawing of such things, and dissemination of such cartoons discourages sickos from watching the cartoons and being encouraged."

There is no evidence for the argument that viewing child porn cartoons increases the risk of a person molesting a child. There is evidence to the contrary, however. Hall, et al. (1995) found that "arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior", Freel (2003) found that "if someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children", while Sheldon & Howitt (2008) found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."

Comment The point of these laws is power (Score 2, Insightful) 933

"I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation."

That may have been the original intention when the first child pornography law was created (I believe that was in 1977), but those who now scream "think of the children!" are not really thinking of the children at all.

Child pornography is an emotional topic, so it is very easy to use the issue for political reasons. Campaigning for laws against issues which cause moral outrage are an easy way for a politician to raise his profile and/or attract support. Each campaigner has to find something slightly different to campaign for, so it's not surprising that someone eventually chose virtual child porn.

Of course, laws against child pornography are also a great way to justify intrusive and restrictive laws. Child porn (among other issues, such as terrorism) was used to justify Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (UK), which forces a person to provide any encryption keys which they know of, under penalty of imprisonment.

Laws against child pornography are an easy route to power, so it is not surprising that politicians use them regardless of the consequences to children and ethical paedophiles.

Privacy

Submission + - Bill Seeks Criminalisation of "Extreme" Ad

Brian Ribbon writes: "During the Queen's speech, it was today announced that the "Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill" intends to criminalise the mere possession of "extreme" or "violent" adult pornography. Many flawed and deceitful arguments (often used to justify the criminalisation of the possession of child porn) have been used, including claims that the possessor will somehow "harm" the victim every time the image is viewed, and the unproven belief that the possessor will be "corrupted" by the images and will then act out his fantasies. The "evidence" (pdf) used to justify this aim of the bill came from a study solicited by the Ministry of Justice, conducted by feminist activists. Will the British government ever cease to use pseudo-science in order to invade the private lives of its citizens?"
Censorship

Submission + - EU Demands Europe-wide Censorship of Underage Porn 2

Brian Ribbon writes: "Radio Netherlands is reporting that the EU is planning to force all of its members to criminalise the viewing of child pornography on the internet. While many people will consider this to be a necessary measure to protect the children, it fails to consider the fact that the downloading of material — without payment — does not encourage those who produce such material, rather it simply offends the public. The production of child pornography is currently the only crime which can't be observed; even watching a video of a murder is legal, yet the EU are demanding even stricter forms of censorship of sexual material. Is such censorship justified, or is it a symptom of a moral panic?"

Slashdot Top Deals

Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...