Be Excellent To Each Other

My apologies then - your post seemed to me to be suggesting that the availability of kids willing to have sex for cash was the single biggest turn on, combined with what appeared to be a sarcastic "oho, but that's been eradicated, hasn't it? Not". So I think you can see where that misunderstanding led to.



Well, what do you mean by "seem to be more paedos"? Do you mean:

(a) People just think there are more, but there aren't necessarily; or
(b) It's likely that there are more but we can't prove it; or
(c) There are absolutely definitely more of them?

Which perhaps drives their compulsion a little - I know that I get a bit stoppy if I haven't had sex for a while, so maybe the desire has more opportunity to build up in a Peadophile (in some cases) until they do something properly bad about it.

Vague aside: I remember that when I was coding Little Savages, males would get a build-up of testosterone that would make them more aggressive if they didn't have sex, and if left long enough they would eventually force themselves on another savage, regardless of whether they liked them or not. I also recall that I deliberately set it so they wouldn't do that to savages below a certain age, even though a savage is 'adult' as soon as it was born, as far as the game was concerned. It was the only concession I made to 'morality', if I remember.

You took out sex with direct family members too, didn't you?

Hmm. I'd always thought it was, in effect, also like a really unpleasant form of OCD, rather than just a sexual orientation.

Or maybe it's always going to be like that for paedos, as they don't have regular release of their desires, so it's always going to be a massive pent up frustration that they have to find an outlet for.

Aha. To be honest, I think it's ludicrous to have a position on it, unless you're 1000 years old or something. But it's something that is often debated, and I've never ONCE seen anyone - whether on television, in any paper, or just in the pub - disagree. It seems to be 'accepted wisdom' that there more about these days. Maybe because there are so many possibilities for why - the internet most of all, obviously. Haven for sick perverted scum*

I was sort of hoping that someone would loudly agee that there are, before anyone called me on it. Darn.

* Present company excepted etc.

But that's what people say about crime generally ("it's never been this bad, getting worse all the time etc etc "), though, despite there being Official Figures^TM proving them wrong. So - who knows. Not us.

Sadly, paedophilia has just become another way to score political points, as well as widely misrepresented in the media for easy sales.

There certainly aren't more abductions of children then there were 30 years ago, but then that is much easier to measure.

I believe that I tried, but it didn't work.


Are there not? I thought that had gone up quite a lot.

I think that will depend on whether you're counting just abductions by strangers, or all abductions including abductions by family members (for, say, profit).

I was counting family members, yes.
The perils of living with Social Workers who have to use 'proper' words.

See, I said this wasn't a proper debate/discussion. That's rubbish, Mr Chris. Even if I had just asked 'Who likes Coca Pops?'


Indeed. Given that we've only started actually trying to maintain a list of who even lives in Britain, since after WWII, it does make it rather tricky to properly maintain a verified list of names and figures. And even harder to try and spot any trends or significant changes, across more than a couple of decades.

Well, we don't though, do we? I'm merely trying to emphasise that relying on the fact that blokes in the pub don't disagree that there are more paedo filf around is not a way forward in a sensible discussion. So, in the absence of any actual data, there's little point arguing about it. Cos we (being you and I) don't know. Someone may do, but they aren't posting here.

I've heard a few paedos attest to this in various documentaries. Although, it's not necessarily sex. Think about it... when society (rightly or wrongly) frowns on you even holding hands with the object of your obsession, sometimes just the tiniest things can be enough. Not necessarily sexual.

I'll never forget seeing one docu, where the police found a Woolworths bag behind a radiator, which had a (new) pair of Spiderman swimming trunks. The paedophile had bought them for a neighbour's boy, "Just as a present, for his birthday", then he had second thoughts, then he tried to 'hide it'. The party had already taken place when the docu aired, and he hadn't attended. He was in tears, and not because he'd been 'caught' (it made no change to his condition).

@Mr Chris - yes, sorry, I was just being silly. Pure facetiousness.

How did you feel about that? Do you emphasise?
I'm not sure if I do - I mean, I think I do, but if it was my kid, I'd be a bit 'upset'.

Well honestly , why make everything so complicated?

Anyone who's a paedophile please raise your hand.

...I feel no empathy for paedophiles, no. Lots of sympathy, sure*. I don't understand finding children attractive in any way. My opinion on kids is only slightly 'nicer' than that of Stu. But I did feel bloody sorry for this seemingly average bloke, who was crying about the swimming trunks he knew he shouldn't have bought for the kid he shouldn't have had a special liking for. Which he knew. That, is in no way, a monster.

* edit: in some cases and situations.

Yes!

Hehe, sorry.

Hmmm, not sure - it's certainly a sad thought - but the guy obviously showed good self control in not going and presenting what was maybe an inappropriate gift, but, of course, it would feel different if it was a member of your familythat you found out that the seemingly nice guy next door had been thinking of in a not exactly wholesome manner and you knew that you as a parent had invited this person into your house.

I guess it is one of those situations where nobody wins, you're just at a sad impasse.

Yeah, I totally meant sympathise.

Or empathise, possibly?

Hmmm, I think it would be hard to empathise with a paedophile, as I cannot imagine myself in their place, it is just too alien to me. Sympathise, maybe, but still at a push.

Yeah, but the previously-mentioned USA spell checker didn't like that (especially the way I probably spelt it).
I blame America. And Craster.

I don't find it that hard to imagine. Not pleasant, ceratainly, but you've got to imagine being a cunt to understand people you think are cunts, so.

Just try to imagine how you would feel if, instead of thinking about lovely ladies or hot men, your mind insisted on conjuring up children instead. It'd be hideous - it turns you on, whatever you do, but you know that it's terrible and you don't want to do anything about it because it's wrong and sick, but you still feel the desire to do something about it because your body is screaming about it. And you can't ask for help because most people would just beat you to death, including some police.

And worse if you're a nice person - you might, y'know, like your neighbours and their kid. You might just want to be a friendly neighbour and get the kid a present, and not ever intend to do anything untoward. But that urge would still be there, and knowing that would tear you up, and make you feel guilty and horrified, and so it goes, round and round.

I don't pretend to understand it, or know how to deal with it, but I think I can imagine how it might feel, and I do feel genuinely sorry for the people who've fought these unwanted feelings where a lesser man would have caved and done something terrible. I wish there were more efforts to understand it, from the medical community as well as society at large, not just to help those people, but to understand how that situation can come about and prevent it from getting to the point where more kids get hurt.

Not read the thread but on instinct I'd be comfortable with anything clearly post-pubescent being legal, and anything under that being not, in the cgi/drawn sense. Between about 15-19 it is very hard to tell in real life on first glance and a person's behaviour will usually give more clues than how big there tits are or how developed their facial hair is. Or both, god help us. But a picture hase none of these 'tells'. The main problem with child abuse is that children get abused, in fact if child abuse didn't involve that then no-one would have a problem with it. And doing a piccy of it doesn't involve any children being abused. Still, we live in a society where one is held responsible in law for one's influence over others so probably some sort of curtailing of this sort ofmaterial is in keping with 'incitement to racial hatred' and so on. I don't necessarily agree with that as I 'believe in' individual responsibility, but that's our system and let's not go treating equal situations differently. 'Synthetic' child pornography can obviously stand a risk of putting someone's mind onto that sort of thing. So let's not let that happen.

There was an interesting guy on Matthew Bannister on Radio 2 this lunchtime saying he wishes the bloke who raped him as a kid could have downloaded cgi kiddy-grot instead because he might have been happy with/distracted by that instead, which is fair enough. So there are those who support it form the side who should really have the most say. This isn't an easy thing to unilaterally condemn or condone.

In such cases, there is a clear implication that the character she plays is underage, whereas the hosting websites go to great pains to explain that she is about thirty. So, perhaps, disclaimers are the way to legitimise and keep legal some stuff which otherwise might not be.

Honestly though, how many people are actually into it?

Were you doing that to protect them, or do you think people old enough to drive a car, marry, work and so on aren't old enough to post slightly risque pictures of themselves?

I'll take <looks at watch> ooh, 7 months in that sweepstake, please.

Mr Chris! You're coming across like you have some sort of massive, straight-out-of-an-80s-slasher-flick axe to grind on CUS' face!

From here:

"some experts consider the availability of porn to have an opposite effect, allowing abusers to obtain stimulation without acting on their impulses. The jury remains out on that debate."

Not an authoritative source on the subject, but it makes a massive amount of sense to me, to be honest. Same as a normal straight chap having a visit with madam palm cuts down the sexual frustration.



Entirely not the case, I can assure you. And: HE STARTED IT

As I implied in the first post, that's largely my view on it too.

(A 'light' intrusion - this digression into the blessed relief of pron reminded me of a blog post I once read < http://strange_stuff.blogspot.com/2008/ ... smith.html >. Sweet dreams)

Thinking about it, in the film "Happiness" there is a really good character in it, that turns out to be a paedophile. Up until the great reveal, you actually DO like him.

Protecting them and others. Them because they were uploading child porn to an Internet website.

Others because they would be (in many cases, quite unwittingly) downloading child porn from an Internet website.

I rooted for him the whole way. God, that film is brilliant.

There was some film set during the binmen strikes in Glasgow or something, in which a young lad (about 11) and a young girl (about 14 or 15) get NAKED and into a bathtub together. There is nothing sexual about this scene - they are two innocent friends having a fun splashy-fight (though it is implied that the young lady is having borderline-forced sex with older lads in their estate)

Should this therefore be banned as SICK PAEDO FILTH?

Romeo and Juliet were 'young', weren't they?

[edit] Aha - "[Juliet] hath not seen the change of fourteen years".
Get banning.

"Underage" porn, certainly not child porn in any rational mind.

Hell, these are people old enough to ACTUALLY fuck. Let's not associate the words "Child porn" with people old enough to have their own kids rather than people who ARE kids thanks.

Weren't the world's youngest ever parents 8 and 9 respectively?

The youngest mother was five. Five.

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

[edit]BE AWARE! There is a photo of the five and a half year old girl standing naked (side on) if you scroll right down, showing a very pregnant belly and swollen breasts.

Vote: Grim DOT DOT DOT

Looking at pregnant kids.

Absolutely. And I'm still massively angry that they saw fit to criminalise two people taking photographs of themselves undertaking a legal activity. Oh, except for the exception that you can take photos of 16 or 17 year olds if you're married to them. But you're not allowed to show them to anyone else, or you're breaking the law.

What sort of twisted logic got us to where we are, eh?

Excellent comment on El Reg:

By some of the definitions in this very thread* she's not a kid.

* </McMahon>

But this is precisely what the law does. Legally, there's no difference between watching your girlfriend willingly take her bra off on camera the night before her 18th birthday, and watching a three-hour video of a toddler being gangraped.

Although I think the police have some sort of scale of 'offensiveness' of the images. But it's very broad, as I understand it, and whether it holds much legal weight rather than simply aiding police statisticians is beyond me.

I'm not sure if any of it's written down anywhere but I'm pretty sure the judges take this sort of thing into account in sentencing. But then who knows what some judges decide to take into account during a trial, as this judge was clearly bonkers.

Yes, and let's not lower ourselves to that level.

You could make another Indy film and not require Sanatogen.