Be Excellent To Each Other

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm





Of course they're fucking not. Due to the fact no-one was harmed.

It's a very small step to banning everything that depicts crime. You certainly couldn't have GTA, it depicts murder!

Of course they've gone for the child porn line so that anyone who argues against this is of course a peado, the usualy governmental cowardly approach. Thankfully some of us can see the baseless attack on civil liberties it is. Personally I'd far rather people like that relived frustrations that way rather than actually raping kids but hey...

Pixels have feelings too.

Surely they should ban the sick Japs who drew that Resident Evil 2 manga where Sherry Birkin gets triple-penetrate-o-raped by zombies in the police chief's office (while the police chief has his way with Clare) instead?

What are they going to do, check their CGI birth certificates?

Heh!

I hadn't thought of that, but yes.

School uniforms are bad, I expect. Ooh, hentai banned!

This is going to lead to a lot of 'touch up' artists getting killed by angry mobs.

For years people tasked with translating Japanese stuff for the West have had to do this - in Snatcher, for example, Katrina Gibson was 14 in the Japanese version. However, because of the implied romance between her and the protagonist (not to mention the fact he catches her in his shower and sees her norks and front bottom and everything) they increased her age to '18' for the Western release.

So, yes. You could argue that it's just nonsense saying someone with almost no sexual development is really 18 in a manga, but then the real world holds such specimens as Little Miss Kitty and Melissa Ashley.

I remember someone once linked to what looked like a horrible game where your objective was to, I think, rape a mother and her two young daughters, one of which, completely flat chested and about waist height, looked about 5 or 6. I don't know who plays those sorts of things, but it certainly looked unpleasant.

I don't know about banning representations of child porn and rape. I suppose as far as CGI is concerned, the closer and closer that CGI characters get to becoming almost photographic (Ok, not there yet, but it may be a possibility in the future), where is the boundary if there is to be one? I can imagine the thinking that very lifelike characters can be imagined as humans, and if the viewer gets into this frame of mind then maybe watching such images, as obsesive as some people are, might awaken, or even create, a like for child porn.

I don't know how realistic this idea is, as it's not something that I care to look at or watch, but I can kind of understand the thinking behind it. I personally cannot imagine for one minute why you'd want to play a game that depicted the raping of a very young child

Also, I do think that is a bit of an uneasy obsession with sex and very young schoolgirls in Japan that makes me wonder what the actual levels of paedophilia are in that community, and how this relates to this area of their culture.

The Japanese are, contrary to popular belief, far less fucked up than us yanks/tea-swillers when it comes to sex and weirdo fetishes.

They're also much better at law and order, as I understand it. I'd be surprised if we don't have more paedos and assorted sexual nutters per head.

The Canadians are a different matter, however.

That would be interesting to know, especially given the unhealthily obsession with sex, particularly with young girls, in the UK.

Er, OBJECTION.

No such thing as an unhealthy obsession with sex, per se.

Obsession with sex with children, yes unhealthy. Obsession with sex with adults, not unheathly.

I didn't actually know that there was one, to be honest.
I think the cosplaying and that whole 'Lolita' thing is quite open in Japan, though, which is maybe where there is a difference.

Sure there is. Well, I know that say, 10 years ago, there were far fewer books, newspapers, magazines and TV shows that used paedophilia to sell themselves. That speaks of obsession.

Oh, honestly I don't think I have seen this around. Not on TV or books or newspapers, but maybe I either do not notice or they are in parts of the media that I do not access.

Oh well, I must be ignorant of such things.

Sidetracking only a little - who has read 'Nabukov's Lolita'?

This is part of the same law that caused the FaceParty site to start kicking out people aged over 36, because they might be sex offenders. It also bans pictures of xTR33m sex, something along the lines of anything that causes harm to breasts or genitals.

My take on it is that, as much as we might vilify them, paedophiles are still human beings. They're just ill. Something broke inside their heads and that makes them want to go against the "rules" of society and fuck kids. This is obviously bad.

If you assume for a moment that they cannot be "fixed", and also assume that the death penalty isn't an option (as it shouldn't), then is it not better for them to "get off" to the things they like from CGI sources, rather than real ones? No kiddies get hurt in the CGI stuff, which already puts it leagues ahead of real child pornography. They're both bad of course, but for different reasons.

All IMO, not condoning any of it like.

You've never seen a newspaper that sells itself on paedophilia-related news? Or seen the paedo-themed thriller novels, where now not only has the ex-SAS man got to save his family, but he's got to save them before they get knobbed by a nonce?

Well, good, then.

Yes, and yet when I reported several 16/17 year old users of the site to the administrators for posting indecent* photos of themselves, nothing was done.

* Nothing particularly graphic, mind.

The same (something 'broke' inside their heads) could be said (and often is said, by me) about gay people.
Er - without the "kids" bit, obviously.

Or, as a mate of mine once said, "Maybe paedophiles are the next evolutionary step for our species, and we just don't know it yet."

I totally agree with what you have said, actually. I do not know if there is a danger of 'simulated child porn' leading on to the exploration of real child porn, which really would be a harmful thing, but I'd be interested to find some information regarding that. But yes, people looking at simulated child porn is of course better than viewing or partaken in the rape of actual children, and I think you have a strong point.

Do you think that paedophiles have some sort of addiction? I mean - is that any different from a Serial Killer (not counting the difference in crime, of course). What I mean is, is saying of someone that has just killed 20 people in a slow and methodical way 'he's still a human, something's just broken in him' the whole story? Sometimes you hear of these groups of middle age men and it seems less of a serious psychological illness and more something that they just want to do, but maybe that is only the way that I perceive it. I don't know, it's confusing and upsetting to think about.

There's a massive difference, yes. One is sexually attracted to children, which they may never act on. The other is a serial killer.

I believe you are thinking of child molesters.

Like I said above, I think that's the same as asking "Do gay people have some sort of addiction"?
At the most basic level, paedophiles are just sexually 'different', in a way that society doesn't want to accept.

There's a very good fucking reason for the lack of acceptance too, a little thing called consent. People have all sorts of fetishes and idiosyncrasies but they only ever get called "monsters" or evil when they do terrible harm to others.

Or look at CGI pictures, of course.
But in most cases, I'd agree with you. But what about when a Russian with a 14 year old wife holidays in England and gets arrested? Or an English chap with a 16 year-old wife goes to certain states of the USA?

Hmmm, but they may be attracted to children and may or may not act on it. The serial killer may be (and I think it might be possible) taking a life with his own hands, and may or may not act on it.

I guess it's the difference between actually taking part (and counting viewing real child porn as taking part, as children are being abused in that process).

Obviously the crime is different, so it is hard to quantify different levels of 'bad', but you could see both as an addiction, a drive of some sort, to do something abhorrent to most normal members of society.

@Grim... Hmmm, I do see your point, there. I wonder though. I mean (sorry I am getting in a muddle and phrasing this all wrong) but I think that gay people may somewhat be 'wired' that way - I think it is a mixture of nature and nurture, but do you think that it is possible that it is in a paedophile's nature to want to sexually molest children?

If it is mostly part of the nurturing process then I would suggest that many men in today's age would not be so very desperate to repress, and re-wire their own thinking as it were, as homosexuality is so widely accepted now - in fact it is celebrated throughout the world of media. I cannot imagine the dawning realisation of thinking that you were attracted to children though and I wonder if it is the same thing. I find it very difficult to come to a conclusion on this because it feels so natural for me to just think it all abhorrent and feel angry at the very existence of paedophiles, yet everything that people are saying does at least make sense, though I am not sure if I can fully agree with it.

If it really is an un-fixable urge then is society powerless to stop it? How did paedophiles cope in the days before internet file sharing and print media? f they all went around molesting children then that is a very terrible thing, but if they were able to suppress their urges then I can only imagine that the availability of such images would make the problem worse.

Sorry to take such a small chunks of your post, but it wasn't so long ago that society was fighting against gay rights (and that having sex with someone of the same gender was illegal).


I think that peadophiles are wired that way to, and remember that in their heads they probably aren't wanting to 'sexually molest' children, just to have sex with them.

Childhood ends at an arbitrary number, remember (16 years in this country, obv).

I don't quite agree with this. I'd imagine that if you were a paedophile who didn't act on your attraction to children, having several stories calling your urges "monstrous" and "inhuman" is probably crushing. Of course actually having sex with children should be illegal, but I don't think someone who wants to do so is a monster by any means if they never act on it. In fact, having a desire you can never act on or confess to sounds like a completely horrible thing to have to live with, and I think it would be better if we lived in a society where we could confess these things without a lynch mob forming outside.

IANAP, as a disclaimer to all this, so perhaps being a paedophile is actually nothing like this at all. But I don't see why latent paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to have their non-harmful images, as I can't see who it could hurt at all. There's kind of an underlying tone to this thread that to have paedophilic thoughts is WRONG, and to be honest I don't agree. Paedophilic thoughts are fine; all thoughts are fine. It's actions we should condemn, or we'll get into the kind of mess we're in now and people will become monstrous demons through doing nothing very much.

The ones that want to have sex with children, that is.

Let's not forget of course that, technically speaking, both boys and girls start to sexually mature (physically, not mentally or emotionally) around the time they become teenagers. So those who are attracted to post-pubescent kids aren't really "sick" as such, they're just acting on the biological impulses wired into us all. It's still wrong, precisely because the kids in question aren't mature enough mentally/emotionally to be able to consent, which is why there are laws in place about it.

Don't they all? Or are you alluding to the fact that paedophile means 'lover of children' and never used to be a 'bad' word?

I agree with you, but I do think that most people can come to a happy conclusion that being gay isn't anything to be worried about in the sense that society will want to put you in prison - I can't imagine this ever being the case with paedophiles, and i think that's where the difference lay. I think that we know that it is inherently wrong but, most importantly, will always be. i simply cannot imagine society's perception shifting as it did with the rights of gay people when it comes to paedophilia.

Apparently not. It also doesn't mean, in the case of the ones who do want to have sex with children, that they would act on that urge, or be comfortable with their thoughts.

In any case, all your various questions of 'What If?' and 'Whyfor?' are silly, people. Just go ask a bishop why he does it, that's quickest.

I'm aware that not all will act on it, but what else can make them a paedophile (my spell checker keeps fixing that for me and I'm convinced it's not right) if not wanting to have sex with children?

Being sexually and romantically inclined toward children. Which isn't the same. Your spellchecker is American.

My head is struggling to differentiate, I must confess.
And yes, I figured, silly US thing.

I largely agree and those aren't terms I'd ever use as I don't think they are very useful (see the debate over "evil") I was just pointing out why society views them differently to someone who admits to being gay. If I knew someone who admitted that they have very frequent and very strong fantasies about murdering people then I'd probably be a bit wary of them as I would question their ability to keep those urges in check. I still think it's unfortunate for them but even the most liberal of societies is going to view people who harbour very harmful desires with suspicion.

Your wife - she's just a good lay then, is she? *owch* Indeed.

It's not simply about sex. This is just the easiest way to understand paedos - 'they fuck kids'.

Much the same as how homosexuality, in all its history and societal curiosities, can be simplified as being about 'a load of dirty bummers'.

Our society is obsessed with sex (again).

One thing I do agree with there is that there should be some kind of counselling available to people with paedophilia urges that they are uncomfortable with to seek help and be able to confess how they feel without worrying that word will get out about it or being punished for actually trying NOT to act on the urges they have to molest or rape children.

I don't think there's anything valid in comparing paedophiles to serial killers (although child molesters and serial killers, maybe).

Take anyone you know. Any ordinary person at all. Change the object of their sexual desires - be it men, women, or whatever - to children. That's all a paedophile is. Absolutely all paedophiles have this in common, by definition, and it is the only significant difference between them and a 'normal' person.

Serial killers though, or would-be serial killers, can feel that urge for a wide variety of reasons. Some are compulsive and have little choice. Some are methodical and highly intelligent, and chose to kill as a considered, planned course of action. Some are orgasmically emotional, irrational and passionate about it, inspired and fascinated by their acts and victims. Some are cold, quietly dispassionate sociopaths, amused or detached from their acts and victims. Some are inspired by religious urges gone badly wrong. Some are told to kill by voices. Some decide to kill to make a statement. They can still have normal, healthy sexual urges, but go out occasionally and slaughter someone as well. Equating it with a misdirected sexual urge just isn't fair, even if in some cases there is a parallel.

And crucially, nobody wants to be a paedophile. Most people who are would rather be normal, know it's sick and fucked up, and some seek help. Plenty of serial killers don't care or even think highly of their crimes. Everyone must have thought about and wanted to kill someone at some point, maybe even a bunch of people, but how many average people have ever wanted to fuck a kid, even for an instant?

I just can't see paedophilia as an addiction or compulsion any more than I can see my attraction to women as addiction or compulsion.

No, she's also a gro-bag.
But yes, of course, point taken - carry on!

Except that, as I keep trying to explain to you, paedophile != child molester.

OK, yes, I meant comparing serial killers to the paedophiles that actually raped or molested children.

I also compared a paedophile who did not act on his urges as being someone who had the urge to take a human life but did not act on it.

Sorry, maybe it was a clumsy analogy.

I thought 'paedophile' meant someone who had the urge to have sex with children whether or not they acted on the impulse. I though it meant 'love of children' or something like that. Much like a gayperson who is celibate or a virgin is still gay, no?

That's largely it Mimi. But, to say that a paedophile is therefore a rape risk, is to say that I am, because I am might rape a woman.

According to everything I have read thus far, anyway. Which reminds me. I've read in the last year, that 60-70% of cases of child abuse, come from those with no history or admittal of paedophilia. Despite, in some cases, that actually being 'the smart thing to do', as it were. Most due to drug abuse. Often, it's because the child was placed in care, and one or more of its protectors becomes arrogant and dismissive of the rights of the child, leading to abuse. See some care homes, for example.

However, the leading single cause of child abuse in this country is... religion. And no, I don't just mean bishops in the Catholic Church. But them too.

It's a valid comparison for exactly the reasons I gave, I never said they were the same thing. Someone harbouring serious urges (for whatever reason) which if acted out would cause immense harm to others is going to be viewed by society differently to someone with some other weird but utterly benign obsession.

Oh, no - but the nature of paedophilia is that a paedophile does not have to be directly involved in the physical abuse of a child for it to be a criminal act, as far as the law is concerned, anyway. Anyone who views the images of children being molested or raped, and so drives the market for such images, is also a paedophile. Maybe there should be a distinction, I am not sure, but I guess if you are in any terms paying for the creation of such images which results in the abuse of children then I don't see how you can not cause harm to children unless you either try to re-program yourself through counselling or just she abstinence.

And my stupid spellchecker is American, too.

Wow you're all awesome, I go to lunch and that's a page and a half of sensible rationalness. The one other place I tried this some idiot just said "Yeah but I don't care about anime nerds wank material" and then proceeded to troll for some time.

I love you guys.



Well there isn't and shouldn't be one. Child porn is banned because a child has to be abused to produce it. No matter how real the CGI this isn't the case.



Both of which I'm really pissed off about too btw.



Absolutely, the problem of course is consent which, rightly or wrongly, we've decided anyone under 16 can't give.



And indeed, despite what the Sun will have you believe, being attracted to an older looking kid is NOT paedophilia, Peadophilia relies on them looking and being pre-puberty and to confuse the two only reduces people's perceptions of paedophilia to "Wowsers look at that 15 year old!".

This specific point has come up before...

http://www.askduds.co.uk/?p=20



I struggle to agree with this, I'm sure it was said about the homosexual at some stage.

To Mimi: But not CGI children. Or painted children, which I believe can also get you in trouble.