Also, in one of his books FBI agent John Douglas lists what he considers the proper releases for pedophiles, including talking nonoffensively to children in public, viewing catalogues for children’s clothing, furnishings, etc. and using children’s toys and dolls for sex aids. In short, anything that does not include the illegal explotation of children.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, and don’t see why no one else has commented on it yet.
You could use this sort of argument against a whole slew of things. Accepting something isn’t the same thing as supporting it.
It would be different in many ways. Some urges can clearly be encouraged; white supremacism is probably one of those. Offering literature or studies which clearly and actively encourage anything harmful is different to a theorized passive encouragement. Besides, I and most, if not all, who have suggested this sort of thing have said we would only support it if we have good reason to believe it will not make things worse. I’m not sure what urges Breaking Bad episodes would satisfy for meth addicts - I don’t think that’s a good comparison. A better one would be offering meth addicts a completely harmless alternative to meth.
What would you propose instead, if anything?
I read Andrew Vachss’ thoughts, and don’t consider them worth much.
Continue to discourage the predation of helpless victims and do everything possible to demonstrate the harm that acting on those urges can cause. We show teenagers photos of drunk driving crashes; we’ve successfully “Scared Straight” some kids. Teaching empathy seems more appropriate than catering to an antisocial tendency.
Some people are prone to temper tantrums and violence, putting them in the boxing ring might give them an outlet, but might also hone their skills and sharpen their ability to cause damage. As far as I know, anger management classes don’t entail sending violent offenders into the ring. Or delivering drunk drivers to a bar and provide a car service. No matter what analogy I can imagine, indulging in antisocial tendencies seems like the worst possible cure or compromise. This
I don’t agree with it at all, that’s why I didn’t comment. Procuring/buying/whatevering child porn (I have no idea how you get the stuff THANK GOD) is the demand that helps fuel the supply. Much like drug users drive the supply of illegal drugs. The difference is, I don’t consider drug use, in and of itself, to be harmful*. Child molestation is a whoooole other kettle of fish.
*obviously it can be harmful to an addict, but the societal harm is caused more by it’s illegality that by users using, in my opinion.
Also, as far as Troppus’s comparison between child porn and Breaking Bad, it was truthfully such a stupid juxtaposition I wasn’t sure how to respond. Suffice it to say, I don’t see the situations as being similar in any kind of meaningful way.
Then pick a better analogy. What are you basing your proposal on? Name a single antisocial tendency that we successfully treat by indulging in that tendency.
Boxing seems like it could be a good way to manage anger, to me. I’ve long thought I’d be a lot less stressed if only I had a punch bag.
A big problem with your analogies is that most of them involve harmful actions, rather than ideas. Giving boxing lessons to someone who gets violently angry may not be a very good idea, just as giving child porn to child molesters might not be a good idea. But giving boxing lessons to someone who has anger issues they can’t help, and honestly wants to deal with, might be a good way to help them.
Bozuit, Have you or **miss elizabeth **any reason to believe that pedophiles suffer some deficit in fantasizing or masturbation that we ought to augment? Who is stopping a pedophile from imagining all sorts of scenarios and creating simulated child porn for his/her own personal use? You seem to be hinting that we should allow the publishing and distribution of simulated child pornography. Why, exactly, if a large section of society and the court system finds the idea of allowing simulated child porn to circulate unchecked repugnant, do either of you feel that anyone “deserves” to have access to it? And who and how will police it to ensure that no actual children have been abused in order to produce it? Should it be prescribed? Or just ignored? And what will happen when a convicted pedophile uses the easy access to simulated child porn as a defense of his/her crime?
We regulate/ban/tax certain things that bear great risk to the consumer and to the public at large. Attractive nuisances. Recreational drug use. Insurance companies can legally refuse to cover risky ventures. States and insurance companies insist on seatbelts, ask cell phone users to hang up and drive. Most jurisdictions would prevent a teenager from skateboarding while hanging onto the bumpers of moving cars because of the risk of harm to themselves and others. We may have excessive laws against victimless crimes, but that fact doesn’t mean that we should deregulate every potentially antisocial behavior because it “might” offset the urge to sexually abuse children.
I think you’re both giving pedophiles too much credit, imagining a tender-hearted, socially responsible, shame-faced loner. Maybe that person needs some tea and sympathy, and some privacy to indulge his/her whims. But what leads you to believe that pedophiles in general deserve our sympathy and help? Some are mean, ruthless bastards who seek out positions of power and authority, who seek out the trust of others, who thrive undetected in environments which gives them free reign to offend kids by the dozens.
Yeah… I don’t see it as my job to find a workable analogy for your dumb idea. Maybe you can’t find something applicable because you’re wrong? Just a thought.
And I’ve already pointed out that rates of sexual assault go down when a society has access to pornography. Now, granted, that may be a correlation (which I admitted). And it may not hold that sexual assault of adults works differently than sexual assault of children, and therefore what holds for one may not work for the other. Which is why I said we should do research and find out the best way to deal with the issue of people born with pedophilic tendencies that want to seek help. I mean, I admit I am pulling a fair amount of shit out of my ass here, but I also support research that can answer these questions. You support, what, putting your head in the sand? Ignorance? Increasing punitive punishments? Criminalizing thoughts??
I DO NOT IN ANY WAY HAVE SYMPATHY FOR CHILD MOLESTERS. I think the sentence for CP mentioned in the OP was completely fair (and I said so). If someone molests a child, I believe they should be put in prison for a long time, maybe for life.
But I also know (because these are facts) that not all child molestors are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles will molest kids. And there are pedophiles out there who want help with their urges, because they do not want to hurt anyone. Criminalizing their feelings only causes them to lurk on the fringes of society, certain they can never live a normal life. That’s where fuckers like NAMBLA hang out, telling them they should indulge their feelings, that it’s ok. I am saying, there has to be a better, more fact-based way to deal with this, such as (as I said already) group therapy, individual therapy, medications, and maybe access to animated CP. As I already stated, I am not in favor of throwing CP at people and saying “have fun! Don’t touch any kids!!”. I am saying, let’s see what the best way to deal with this is, and then pursue it. I am interested in solving a problem; you are interested in moral posturing. I know your way feels good, but it doesn’t solve anything.
The vast majority of legal pornography depicts consenting adults. We can even expect rape fantasies and sad masochism to depict consenting adults. Consumers may occasionally choose to suspend disbelief and pretend that an adult female pretending to be a reluctant party is actually being overpowered, but by and large consumers are aware that porn actors have freely given consent. Each consumer is free to seek out like minded willing adult partners to reenact practically any legal scenario.
You cannot make that claim about consumers of simulated child porn. In simulated child porn there is no legally consenting player. There are likely elements of coercion, of grooming, of keeping activities hidden from concerned parents. You cannot convince me that feeding the fantasy of pedophilia will diminish the urge for the offender to seek out live partners. Like I said, Toddlers and Tiaras is probably catnip to pedophiles and sends confusing messages to offenders. How can we teach empathy and morality with that parade of sexy kids, and how would simulated child porn be an improvement over the near porn they already have? If heavily made up children dressed as strippers bumping and grinding all over a stage for the pleasure and entertainment of adults is distasteful, how would you classify depictions of similar kids in sex acts? Most people are wired to seek companionship. We should encourage pedophiles to develop healthy relationships with consenting adults rather than give them the tools to hole up and immerse themselves in antisocial fantasies.
How do we treat it? Well, we criminalize actions and punish them harshly. We offer psychological and psychiatric treatment to those who seek help. We teach morality, discuss consent, explain the tremendous harm done to kids. We ask victims to share impact statements. We prevent and redirect;we don’t indulge or encourage.
Do you think watching a murder mystery on TV is OK? Is that okaying the idea of murder and saying it’s OK to view people as objects to be murdered? Doe it make it OK because the murder gets caught at the end? So would it be OK if to have drawn cartoons of sexual activity with a child as long as the perpetrator was caught at the end?
There is no reason to assume the general consumer of television is mentally ill or fixated on an unhealthy fantasy life. A pedophile seeking to avoid causing harm ought to seek healthy, age appropriate relationships rather than indulging in antisocial fantasies. A certain high profile celebrity fixated on kids had several potential suitors and at one point: a wife. Don’t you think he would have led a less troubled existence if he had received counsel and conditioning that helped him become more comfortable in age appropriate relationships rather than building a nest which attracted children and disadvantaged parents who willingly handed over their children to keep him company? The trials, the judgments, the negative press and bad reputation surely was not worth the fantasy world he created.
Is there actually child porn produced with the intent to sell it? Frankly, I have doubts. I’ve read that almost all the child pornography that leads to possession charges is the same stuff that has been circulating for ages.
I mean I don’t doubt there are people currently taking pictures or making movies, but I strongly doubt they’re doing so wondering if there will be enough demand to turn a profit on it.
As for banning drawings or discussing whether the granddaughter’s naked butt is child porn, that’s just insane. The worst case I’ve read here being this Australian guy who had been sentenced for owning porn cartoons of the Simpsons. When such a thing begins to make sense for a legislator, a judge or part of the general public, there’s something seriously wrong in the collective psyche.
The problem is that I believe in sexually reprogramming pedophiles about as much as I believe in sexually reprogramming gay people. I would use the same argument : try to talk yourself into being sexually attracted by little girls, and let us know how it goes.
ETA : to answer the OP, 9 years is way too long a sentence for possession IMO.
It would only seem that way to someone who didn’t read what we wrote.
Again, read what was written. No one has said anyone deserves access to child porn. And honestly, I don’t find what society thinks to be a useful indicator of morality.
The police?
Neither until we find out if either is the most effective policy. Then, if one does turn out to be the most effective policy, we should probably do that.
That defence will completely ignored, just as easy access to simulated porn featuring adults is not a defence for rape.
No, it doesn’t mean that at all. But we should look at the evidence, or gather evidence if necessary, to discover if any of these policies are indeed best for reducing harm. Unfortunately, this approach is rarely used because it’s so much easier to play on emotions, knee-jerk reactions and black/white representations of reality. The “war on drugs” is a perfect example of this.
See this:
That. My opinions on objectionable ephebephilia depend more on the age gap than on the age itself, and I’m not sure why someone who can meaningfully consent to sex itself should be considered unable to consent to be in porn.
It’s possible – indeed, likely – likely that the number of adult women “available” to me in that sense is fairly small, but the number of children available to me is zero.
Would you consider it likely that, if no adult women were willing, you would just rape one instead?
Clearly.
You ignorance on this topic is incredibly vast, but your mind is closed. Therefore, I have nothing more to say to you. Have a nice night.