Text 33924, 106 rader
Skriven 2009-06-29 10:02:52 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 33845 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: King of Pop is Dead
===========================
Hello Björn.

28 Jun 09 12:45, you wrote to me:

 BF>  * Forwarded from area 'FIDONEWS'
 JS>> strictly a physical thing or can it be emotional too? If someone
 JS>> has sex with a child. Does or can that constitute abuse.

 BF>    Of course it does! Psychological/emotional abuse is just as bad as
 BF> physical, and should be punished as hard as possible.

    Agreed. And that is the point I have been trying to make. The
alternative opinion of some is that our law here is wrong in trying
to PREVENT the abuse before it happens instead of dealing with the
aftermath after the abuse has already been done. While I can respect
their opinion. That opinion does not change the manner in which the
law makers here have decided to try to combat child abuse and
exploitation.

 JS>> is at what point or age is the child capable of deciding or
 JS>> knowing what they are agreeing to do sexually.

 BF>    True. That's why it's so unacceptable to have a fixed age "of
 BF> consent" in the laws.

   The alternative is to have a law that is not that well defined and
that can be more easily challanged by everyone charged with a related
crime. Every child abuse victim would then need to prove that (s)he
didn't realize what they were being asked to do sexually.

 JS>>    I doubt that it is totally acceptable everywhere.

 BF>    Well, rape pictures and fantasies are acceptable on Google (you get
 BF> tens of millions of hits) -- in my book that means it acceptable
 BF> "everywhere".

    I doubt that Google is a valid representation of worldwide opinion.
It is more likely an opinion of those interested in child abuse. Including
both those for and against it. The last Google search I did o the subject
was to check the current age of consent in countries around the world. The
average seems to be 16 years.


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

 BF>    Does possession of e.g. the movie "I Spit On Your Grave" (with lots
 BF> of graphic rape scenes) constitute a stepping stone for rapists?

 BF>    Does possession of all the movies, with lots of violence, that are
 BF> constantly released by all the major movie companies, act as a
 BF> stepping stone to violent crimes?

 BF>    The answer to both the above questions is probably "yes" for a very
 BF> minute minority of people, but for normal people I bet it's "no".

   You are probably correct. But I would also say that the rape, and violence
movies provide stimulus for those  with a particular desire is those two
activities. If I were to have an acute interest in sex I am likely to see
more poro movies. If I have an interest in rape, violence I will probably go
and live out my related fantasies while watching those type of movies. The
same would apply to child abuse or child sex desires.

 JS>> If the possesion of child porn is made or is continued to be made
 JS>> illegal then there is less incentive for people to act
 JS>> out their child fantasies.

 BF>    That's the way of reasoning that I simply can't understand. When
 BF> you were a kid and the Playboy magazine was "illegal" for you(?) did
 BF> that make you fantasize less about naked women? Or did it even have
 BF> the opposite effect...? :)

    As a child (8yr-14yr) I never owned a Playboy and maybe only looked at a
couple issues. As an adult (25yr or so) I only purchased one issue and that
was the 25th aniversary issue. I never had much of an interest in those type
of publications. I would say that I had the usual teenage desires. But I am
one of those people that choose to try to control my desires and try to not
let them control me.


 BF>    Every civilized society today have strict rules against child
 BF> abuse, why not let those laws regulate matters? That way we don't have
 BF> to pass laws with fuzzy and questionable definitions (what is a child?
 BF> what is pornography? and so on) giving the Moral Majority the means to
 BF> bend the laws to fit their narrow minded agenda.

   But in those "Strict Rules" there still needs to be definitions. What
constitues child abuse and who is considered a child to which that rule
would apply. Regardless of the definitions used there will be those that
will object. There is no perfect solution here. Each country has I think
simular goals. They just dffer somewhat on how they try to achieve those
goals to protect children.  Contrary to te opinion of some. Are a particular
countries laws bad simply because they are different? I doubt that there
will ever be total agreement.

 BF> --- Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
 BF>  * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
SEEN-BY: 2/2 10/3 14/5 18/25 109/568 116/116 120/544 123/22 35 50 52 65 72
SEEN-BY: 123/140 456 500 650 708 789 1025 2000 6502 124/311 128/1 132/500
SEEN-BY: 135/364 1313 138/146 389 140/1 2 12 14 153/7715 203/0 2 208 412 600
SEEN-BY: 211/37 221/0 226/160 600 229/426 2000 3000 250/1 7 100 514 261/38
SEEN-BY: 261/1466 266/512 275/100 280/1141 5555 292/100 854 311/1 320/119
SEEN-BY: 322/759 323/120 342/5 16 77 372/6 379/1 382/48 61 397/22 400/567
SEEN-BY: 770/355 772/1 800/214 2437/33 3634/12 3828/7 3830/2 5075/35 7105/1