Text 33858, 146 rader
Skriven 2009-06-28 14:52:20 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 33843 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: King of Pop is Dead
===========================
Hello Jeff,

>BF>What's wrong with being a paedophile ("someone who loves
>BF>children")? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to their own sexual
>BF>fantasies -- no matter how twisted they may seem to the rest of
>BF>us -- as long as it stays fantasies?
>RC>Acting out those fantasies is another thing entirely.
>BF>How so? Who are you to say who's allowed to act out his or her
>BF>fantasies and who are not? As long as there is no child abuse
>BF>involved, who's suffering other than The Moral Majority?

JS>That would depend on the definition of "Child Abuse". Is child abuse
JS>strictly a physical thing or can it be emotional too? If someone has
JS>sex with a child. Does or can that constitute abuse. The other question
JS>is at what point or age is the child capable of deciding or knowing what
JS>they are agreeing to do sexually. Children can alot more easily be
JS>manipulated by an adult to agree or to do what the adult wishes. Is it
JS>a benifit for a child to know what it is like to have sex with an adult
JS>at say 13 or 14 years of age?

Here's one for you -
Suppose a father has several sons, all of whom he abuses.
The boys' mother allows him to do so, being she loves her husband.
The father convinces his sons that it is "normal" for a father to
have sex with his sons.  His sons grow up, not realizing they were
victims of "child abuse."  To them, homosexuality is normal.  To
them, incest is normal.  To them, their father is a model father,
and their mother is a model mother.  To them, they have been brought
up very well, with good morals everybody can be proud of.

The boys volunteer for military service.  All are accepted, the
"Don't ask, don't tell" policy being the norm.  Of course, none of
the boys lasts very long and each are given an honorable discharge.
Then they move on to civilian life, where they discover women.

And that is when the real problems begin...

>BF>Rape is a very heinous crime, that's committed in the millions each
>BF>year. But rape porn is totally acceptable -- just google for it and
>BF>you find plenty of explicit pictures and movies. Of course everyone
>BF>knows it's all just fake, right? So it's totally acceptable to live
>BF>out your rape sex fantasies. Why?

JS>I doubt that it is totally acceptable everywhere. It IS of course
JS>acceptable to those with a particular interest in the subject. Contrary
JS>to some I don't see (Non-Violent) pictures and videos of adults as THAT
JS>bad of a thing for those that need some help with their "Adult" fantasies.
JS>But as I am sure that you know if there is a call for something in
JS>particular. There will be those that will try to make a profit trying to
JS>fulfill that call.

Not all cultures view "child abuse" in the same way.  In some cultures,
it is expected a father will teach his daughters how to sleep with a
man, giving her much-needed free advice and experience.  And a mother
will teach her sons.

In the not too distant past, in this very country, the norm was
for a young woman of age 12 or 13 to marry a man of age 40 or 50.
The young woman would bear children, her husband only being around
for a few short years before she gets to inherit all his property.
Then the woman, her sons and daughters grown to adulthood, with
herself still being relatively young at age 40 or 50, would take
on a young suitor, teaching him how to treat a woman.  That young
suitor would then later inherit all her property, marry a young
woman, have children, the cycle repeating itself.

Society changes over time.  Values change over time.  Even morals
change over time.  What is considered "child abuse" today was not
considered "child abuse" yesterday.  What changes the future holds
is anybody's guess.

JS>There are a number of Hollywood type movies out there that depict
JS>rape, killing, and violence. Heck, it's hard to find movies that don't
JS>contain those things. Unfortunately there is a desire for that type of
JS>content. But sex between adults is more of a natural thing and is usually
JS>not illegal. Sex with childdren IS and IS illegal in many countries.

Define "children."  Define "age of consent."  Legal definitions
will vary between countries, and that is not even getting into what
is considered moral and what is considered immoral.  It was not
that long ago that sodomy was a crime in this country.  But even
though sodomy is still regarded as immoral, it is no longer considered
as being a criminal act.  However, bestiality is still a crime.
At least with live animals.

>BF>Would making it illegal to possess rape porn make rape go away?
>BF>After all, that's exactly what the "war on paedophilia" is trying to
>BF>accomplish.

JS>Probably not. But if the possesion of child porn was permitted. Would
JS>not the possesion of it be a stepping stone to the actual acting out of a
JS>pedophile's sexual fantasies?

Define "child porn."  Is a nudist magazine considered "child porn"
if it contains pictures of young children?  Is a nudist web site
considered "child porn" is it contains such pictures on its web site?
What about pictures of young girls in bikinis at a beach or water
park?  There is a local case being tried in which a fellow took
pictures of young girls in bathing suits at a water park, even though
his explanation was that some of the girls were his daughters.
How far should the arm of the law stretch?  Where should the line
be drawn?

>BF>I can only repeat what I said in the passage that you didn't
>BF>comment on:

>BF>"It's the child molesters that are despicable, and they sure as
>BF>hell don't love children or they wouldn't do what they do to the
>BF>kids."

JS>Agreed.

Whether it is raping children or raping adults, both acts are
despicable.  Rape is a crime of violence, not a crime of passion.
No victim of rape wanted to be raped, or enjoyed being raped.
Even if they did not realize they were raped (children might not
realize they were victimized until much older).

>BF>This "war on paedophilia" doesn't save one single child from being
>BF>abused, all it does is giving people the comforting feeling that they
>BF>actually make a difference. I beg to differ on that matter. :(

JS>I also beg to differ. Is the war particularly effective? Probably not as
JS>much as one would hope. But if a child molester or child exploiter is taken
JS>off the streets. Those children that would have been molested are saved the
JS>physical and emotional tramma. If the possesion of child
JS>porn is made or is continued to be made illegal then there
JS>is less incentive for people to act
JS>out their child fantasies. There is no perfect solution here Bjorn.

The governor of Louisiana would like child rapists to be given
the death penalty.  But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that child
rapists cannot be put to death (unless the child was killed).
The governor then tried to get the state legislature to pass
legislation mandating child rapists be sent to a mental institution
upon release from prison, thus keeping them out of society for an
indefinite period of time (meaning life).  Unfortunately, the ACLU
got upset and started howling and the legislators backed off.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Pas trop bien.

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)