Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Middle schoolers charged with kiddy porn

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Middle schoolers charged with kiddy porn
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

djsmnc

Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe

Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:08 pm Post subject:

Juregen wrote:

I guess playing doctor when I was 8 would end me in jail right now.

FFS people get a grip, it's called discovering your sexuality.

No! It's sin, along with dancin, drinkin, and movin pictures!

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:12 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Look, it's simple if a person gets off on child pornography they are a pedophile by definition. A pedophile is more likely than an average person to abuse a child. Relatively unlikely, but far more likely than the average person. I would err on the side of chance on this every time, pedophiles have rights of course, but they also have a mental problem that needs to be taken into consideration.

OK, so then by your definition, more than one out of every four normal men are pedophiles.

From: Behavior Therapy
Volume 26, Issue 4, Autumn 1995, Pages 681-694

Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men

Gordon C. Nagayama Hall, Richard Hirschman, and Lori L. Oliver
Kent State University, USA

Quote:

Over � of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

Or is it one out of three?

Quote:

Twenty-six subjects (33%) exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:19 am Post subject:

Juregen wrote:

I guess playing doctor when I was 8 would end me in jail right now.

FFS people get a grip, it's called discovering your sexuality.

Exactly. It is like none of these people, including lawmakers, remembers their own childhood.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:14 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Juregen wrote:

I guess playing doctor when I was 8 would end me in jail right now.

FFS people get a grip, it's called discovering your sexuality.

Exactly. It is like none of these people, including lawmakers, remembers their own childhood.

I think in the case of a lot of lawmakers, they're just terrified of losing their seats if they stand up for common sense. This is a topic where it's very easy to completely misconstrue someone's position, and the public is obviously pretty easy to whip into a frenzy over it. That doesn't excuse them, of course, but it does explain their behavior to a large extent.

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:37 am Post subject:

Quote:

Over � of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

I think the problem arises when these guys start asking those performing the study where they can get more porn. Sure, a young, good looking kid can turn a person on. A decent human would simply say shut that crap off.

I truly believe that this kind of stiimulus can -and will- eventually lead to more molestation. Making and accepting the "free" trading of kiddie porn is a geenie in a bottle situation as far as I'm concerned.

The more access to this crap with people that have pedophilic tendencies, will certainly make more want to "experiment"

People actively downloading and possesing child porn are potential threats to children. It's a sickness.

How about this situation? Someone, has a penchant for violent sex, he witnesses a gang rape and simply watches, does not participate, just watches and enjoys it.

Is this ok?

What makes possesing child porn -which is possesion and evidence of a criminal act- that much different? In the end, the job is to get the produces and distributers behind bars, but I sure would like to make those in possesion of it sweat it out in a cell as well. (Not to mention a well placed fist to the mouth) I'd shudder to think what I'd do if I was using a friends computer and came across that crap.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:25 am Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

In the end, the job is to get the produces and distributers behind bars, but I sure would like to make those in possesion of it sweat it out in a cell as well. (Not to mention a well placed fist to the mouth)

bacasper wrote:

Mom's foto of her kid in the tub? Dad's foto of the baby breastfeeding? [Producers of] An episode of Little House on the Prairie? A teen sexting a topless foto to her boyfriend? Two 13-year-olds happily getting it on?

OK, so these are the people you'd like to see behind bars. Got it.

Rolling Eyes

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:22 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

riverboy wrote:

bacasper wrote:

OK, so these are the people you'd like to see behind bars. Got it.

Rolling Eyes

Are these the majority of cases? Obviously things like these shouldn't be crimes, but I suspect that if appealed it would be over turned. Sure it needs to be changed so that things like this don't happen, I doubt very many people would disagree.

You do seem to be trivializing the legitimate cases.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:55 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

bacasper wrote:

riverboy wrote:

bacasper wrote:

OK, so these are the people you'd like to see behind bars. Got it.

Rolling Eyes

Yes, these are the majority of cases these days. And the reason is that "legitimate cases" are so hard to find, that they keep expanding the definition of what constitutes "child pornography" just so they can maintain a pretext to keep the boogeyman alive.

Did you know that photos of kids with their clothes on can now be prosecuted as kiddy porn? Look up Knox v. US.

riverboy

Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject:

Quote:

OK, so these are the people you'd like to see behind bars. Got it.

So, why are you quoting something else in response to my statement?Pure sensationalism.

I never said that there is a frenzy going on regarding child porn. In all honesty, Bacasper, you are doing the same thing in reverse as those who are charging moms and kids for taking harmless pics of bare bottoms and such. And you know full well that I am not talking about that kind of stuff.

But when people/adults posses videos and pictures of children performing sexual acts on each other, or adults, they are committing a crime in my eyes, and in the vast majority of the publics eyes. Now you, and groups like NAMBLA will say otherwise, but the argument is sick in my mind, and I could do without people such as you in my world.

I'll even go as far to say Bacasper -that you seem to have such a strong opinion on the legality of kiddie porn; stating the minimal effects on victims; studies where 15 of 80 men were sexually aroused after viewing child porn- that it wouldn't at all surprise me if you had a hard drive full of that crap.

Look, I've said this before. I grew up in a pretty poor area where a few buddies went to juvenile detention. I personally know four guys who were molested by KARL TOFT Google him. Everyone of these guys are frail, introverted, shy men who were robbed of their manhood. They all came out changed.

I know a girl who was pimped out to dozens of men -if not more- by her step father. She's a mess; can't stay faithfull in any relationship and has a massive eating disorder.

Pedophilia, the sexual act,a nd exploitation is bad Bacasper. BAD.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

I'll even go as far to say Bacasper -that you seem to have such a strong opinion on the legality of kiddie porn; stating the minimal effects on victims; studies where 15 of 80 men were sexually aroused after viewing child porn- that it wouldn't at all surprise me if you had a hard drive full of that crap.

This is the kind of rhetoric that fuels witch hunts. Anyone who doesn't go along with the witch hunt becomes one of its subjects, intimidating the average, reasonable person into compliance. The result of this process are things like 18 year olds ending up eternally ostracized for having sex with their 17 year old partners, individuals getting into serious legal trouble over receiving pictures of their younger family members having fun in swimming suits, and so forth.

Genuine sexual abuse of children is harmful to society. People who sexually abuse children should be delt with as criminals. People who have done nothing more than downloaded pictures from the internet while never laying a finger on a child do not fall into that category, and in fact if treated properly can be assets rather than liabilities in our attempt to protect our society's children, by leading us back to the real criminals: the producers of child pornography.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:31 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

[
Genuine sexual abuse of children is harmful to society. People who sexually abuse children should be delt with as criminals. People who have done nothing more than downloaded pictures from the internet while never laying a finger on a child do not fall into that category, and in fact if treated properly can be assets rather than liabilities in our attempt to protect our society's children, by leading us back to the real criminals: the producers of child pornography.

Interesting. You feel that we should not treat them as criminals...so how exactly do we induce them to give up their suppliers?

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Fox wrote:

Interesting. You feel that we should not treat them as criminals...so how exactly do we induce them to give up their suppliers?

This is a good point. Typically in a situation like this the person becomes a CI, certified informant, in order to get out of jail time. With nothing to hold over them they are not likely to snitch.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:44 pm Post subject:

riverboy wrote:

Quote:

OK, so these are the people you'd like to see behind bars. Got it.

So, why are you quoting something else in response to my statement?Pure sensationalism.

Maybe because it answers your statement?

riverboy wrote:

In the end, the job is to get the produces [sic] and distributers [sic] behind bars,

The people I responded with

Quote:

plus the middle school subjects of this OP, are all, legally speaking, producers of kiddy porn, the people you want to see behind bars. If you continue to support these laws, you are continuing to support incarceration of these people. (OK, no has yet gone to prison for Little House, but the prosecutor who commented is leaning in that direction.)

riverboy wrote:

And you know full well that I am not talking about that kind of stuff.

So you can't define it, but you know it when you see it? This is exactly the problem. The law is being applied mostly to the kind of stuff that you are not talking about. This is why and how the law is doing more harm than good.

Furthermore, as documented by NYU Law Prof. Amy Adler in her Columbia Law Review article, The Perverse Law of Child Pornography, it may even make your "legitimate cases" worse:

Quote:

certain sexual prohibitions invite their own violation by increasing the sexual allure of what they forbid. I suggest that child pornography law and the eroticization of children exist in a dialectic of transgression and taboo: The dramatic expansion of child pornography law may have unwittingly heightened pedophilic desire.

Can you honestly say the idea that a mere glance at a photograph can get you ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine does not pique your interest in the least?

Amy Adler wrote:

Child pornography law has turned every man, woman, and child in America into a vile, pustulating pedophile.

riverboy wrote:

But when people/adults posses videos and pictures of children performing sexual acts on each other, or adults, they are committing a crime in my eyes, and in the vast majority of the publics eyes. Now you, and groups like NAMBLA will say otherwise, but the argument is sick in my mind, and I could do without people such as you in my world.

I would be much happier if the law were limited to such cases; after all, that is what the word pornography means. My problem is prosecutors and lawmakers twisting that term to encompass all sorts of things that do not fit its dictionary definition.

You don't want me in your world, but you apparently want the world to which Adler alludes where you see child sex in everything. OK, got it. But I'm the sick one, right? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Don't misquote the study: 15 of 80 had arousal higher than that to adult porn; a much higher number experienced any level of sexual arousal after viewing child porn. I'd like you to undergo penile plethysmography. It wouldn't at all surprise me if you had a positive response. After all, we know that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal.

Yes, Fox, the witch hunt is alive and well. Everybody, do not DARE to think independently on this issue lest you get called a pervert yourself! Rolling Eyes

BTW, I went to the NAMBLA website. I couldn't find anything about kiddy porn there. But feel free to keep spreading misinformation.

Quote:

Look, I've said this before. I grew up in a pretty poor area where a few buddies went to juvenile detention. I personally know four guys who were molested by KARL TOFT Google him. Everyone of these guys are frail, introverted, shy men who were robbed of their manhood. They all came out changed.

I know a girl who was pimped out to dozens of men -if not more- by her step father. She's a mess; can't stay faithfull in any relationship and has a massive eating disorder.

Pedophilia, the sexual act,a nd exploitation is bad Bacasper. BAD.

So your buddies went in as criminals, but it was the molestation that ruined them? Rolling Eyes

OK, so since I believe that moms should not be thrown in prison as kiddy pornographers for a shot of their kid in the tub means that I give a green light to prison guards molesting their minor charges and that fathers pimping out their daughters? Why do people's brains turn off when it comes to this subject? This witch hunt has become damn effective.

Talk about straw men! How about staying on topic?

Last edited by bacasper on Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Fox wrote:

Interesting. You feel that we should not treat them as criminals...so how exactly do we induce them to give up their suppliers?

I feel when one is caught with child pornography they should have to account for the source. If they refuse to provide a source, then the law can proceed assuming they are the source (after all, it had to have come from somewhere). If they provide their source, then we're one step closer to finding the actual abusers due to their assistance. I feel this set-up will strongly incentivize them to cooperate, and result in a greater likelihood of actually apprehending the genuine offenders, those who directly and personally harm children.

I prefer this to the setup Leon describes because it codifies proper handling of the situation into the law, instead of relying on the whims of individual prosecutors and the deals they are able to cut. I also feel it is more just in principle, as I don't feel the act of downloading pictures and viewing them in-and-of itself should be a crime.

Kaypea

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

maintain a pretext to keep the boogeyman alive.

Did you know that photos of kids with their clothes on can now be prosecuted as kiddy porn? Look up Knox v. US.

But it looks like there, they were targeting those really sleazy "child-model" productions which were pretty obviously sexual, but I guess didn't previously violate any particular law. I really think stuff like this fans the flames of child abuse.

I mean... you can have a video of a totally nude kid playing in water and it's not sexual at all, or you could have a video of a kid dressed pretty much head to toe in a leotard doing some unnatural dance moves to sexy music and it's a totally different thing. These sleazy kid abusers can't be allowed to get away with selling hot videos of clothed kids.

That being said, a real pedophile could get off to a diaper ad, so it's not like I'm looking for "secret kid porn" all over the place. Just anything that's obvious, no matter what % of the body is actually showing, that has to go.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe