Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

[SaskiaJayne]

See, that's a bit better. You can do it if you try, can't you?

Doesn't change the fact that your view of the 'medieval' 1970's and the 'civilised' present day don't make any sense like. But now you're making an effort.

Wtf are you on about? that is what I have been saying all along, obviously my previous posts wern't clear enough for you to understand & it appears you still can't quite get it now.

So lets try again.... If paedos think they can get away with it then they will offend. If they think they may well get caught & punished severely then less of them will offend. Surely even you can take that on board?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Wtf are you on about? that is what I have been saying all along, obviously my previous posts wern't clear enough for you to understand & it appears you still can't quite get it now.

So lets try again.... If paedos think they can get away with it then they will offend. If they think they may well get caught & punished severely then less of them will offend. Surely even you can take that on board?

I can definitely agree that people who think they can get away with it are more likely to offend and I've said that. But I've said that how likely they are to be caught and punished depends very much on power. What I'm taking issue with is your bizarre explanation that 'civilised' societies - by which you mean, as you have said, European ones - have less child abuse.

 

[nino_savatte]

Drawings do not involve harming real children; but allow freedom of expression even though some consider them offensive.

Are you in the LM network, by any chance?

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I can definitely agree that people who think they can get away with it are more likely to offend and I've said that. But I've said that how likely they are to be caught and punished depends very much on power. What I'm taking issue with is your bizarre explanation that 'civilised' societies - by which you mean, as you have said, European ones - have less child abuse.

It depends what you call a 'civilised' society. Certainly not Saudi Arabia, somebody jailed & receives 1000 lashes for insulting Islam & yet child sexual abuse there apparently ok? I also alluded to that in any society 'the veil of civilisation is very thin'. It takes little to make some men turn into monsters but ensuring they are locked up if they do helps & that will depend on the laws of the land in which the offences are committed.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It depends what you call a 'civilised' society. Certainly not Saudi Arabia, somebody jailed & receives 1000 lashes for insulting Islam & yet child sexual abuse there apparently ok? I also alluded to that in any society 'the veil of civilisation is very thin'. It takes little to make some men turn into monsters but ensuring they are locked up if they do helps & that will depend on the laws of the land in which the offences are committed.

I'm not calling anywhere civilised, I didn't bring that term up. Where do you think is civilised?

 

[Kesher]

Are you in the LM network, by any chance?

What's the LM network?

 

[killer b]

If that's the case then on those grounds alone, it's a far too ambivalent law. Illustrators of books on ancient Greece to be criminalised.

What’s your point here? That because there’s grey areas, we shouldn’t bother trying to police this at all?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Would we all agree that masturbating to images of children being raped is NOT GOOD and that anyone who does so should probably get some professional help?

If you agree with the above then I fail to see how you can support the production and possession of material designed solely to facilitate it.

I totally agree with this sentiment. It's just what does that mean in terms of a law? Your criteria of "material designed solely to facilitate it" is really not that far removed from "I know it when I see it" verdict from the Jacobellis v Ohio case in the US, where judges ruled a film called Les Amants could not be considered obscene. A majority of the judges upheld it was not obscene material but none of them could agree what obscenity was and so couldn't agree why it wasn't.

As was mentioned on the first page of the thread, in Japan as a result of child pornography being made illegal, people are now producing material involving children which is not technically classed as porn because their genitals are covered, but is nonetheless produced for people to get off on. People have mentioned as well that often people will cut out pictures of kids from magazines or collect childrens underwear. Whatever you ban I think you'll find 'alternatives' being used. I was just wondering what a reasonable threshold for such a ban would be.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So is sexual orientation towards young kids something some people are born with or is it a social construct, ie men(it is mainly men, I think)if they so desire will abuse kids if they can get away with it for whatever reason in the society they live in? The fact is nobody knows, anybody you can think of from people you work with to famous people could be paedophiles, either offending or not, nobody, not even 'experts' can pretend they have any idea.

From what has been determined from research, a minority (about 30% IIRC) "are born with"/develop at an early age a sexual orientation towards children (this can be for many reasons,although the best-known and most easily-understood is experience of abuse by the person who goes on to become anabuser). The remaining majority are instrumental paedophiles - people who sexually assault and rape children because they're even less likely to be caught for doing so, than for doing so to adults. Experts have some idea, but the ethical problems around researching perpetrators and victims directly are vast and thorny
The element of social construction in paedophilia tends to be how "we" view and react to those who fit the category "paedophile". Paedophilia is socially-constructed insofar as how the category is read varies across cultures,and sometimes within cultures.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So where did this type of pornography come from?

Lizards.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Lizards.

Don't forget Jooz.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't forget Jooz.

Lizards are Jooz.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Lizards are Jooz.

Only the leaders.

 

[Spymaster]

It's just what does that mean in terms of a law?

As I said, the UK law that I quoted at #250 is pretty specific.

As was mentioned on the first page of the thread, in Japan as a result of child pornography being made illegal, people are now producing material involving children which is not technically classed as porn because their genitals are covered, but is nonetheless produced for people to get off on. People have mentioned as well that often people will cut out pictures of kids from magazines or collect childrens underwear. Whatever you ban I think you'll find 'alternatives' being used. I was just wondering what a reasonable threshold for such a ban would be.

There are many opinions and arguments about it. Personally I'm happy to see adult rape porn banned too but appreciate it's a bigger can of worms.

But banning images of child rape is a no-brainer, afaic.

 

[SpackleFrog]

As I said, the UK law that I quoted at #250 is pretty specific.



There are many opinions and arguments about it. Personally I'm happy to see adult rape porn banned too but appreciate it's a bigger can of worms.

But banning images of child rape is a no-brainer, afaic.

I agree, I think cartoons of naked children should be banned as well, but I still don't really think we're close to any serious solution to any of the issues.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

although the best-known and most easily-understood is experience of abuse by the person who goes on to become anabuser

This has always struck me as the simplistic answer, the one always trotted out because it sounds logical. 'Why do some adults sexually abuse kids? Because they themselves were abused as kids, simples'. & yet I would have thought for most being abused as a child would make them less likely to be an abuser as an adult because they know how wrong it is & how they hated the abuse? I think it is correct most child sexual abuse occurs within families & I think this abuse can carry on within that family for generations in some cases so I guess in that situation those being abused as kids might see that behaviour as 'normal' & eventually become adult abusers?

 

[DotCommunist]

as has been also seen on the 44 year old teacher shagging 15 year old pupil thread, if you voice disquiet your labelled as a reactionary by people who are utterly silent when it comes to any other issues where a progressive voice is useful- anti terror ledge aimed at stifling protest? silence. Laws aimed at hobbling labour organisation? Not a peep. But the right to go shagging your 15 year old pupil, well saddle up Liberty cos I'm heading into the fray.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Only the leaders.

Jooz are the leaders of the world. We control the Masons, the Illuminati, international banking and the Womens' Institute.We are everywhere, and control everything.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This has always struck me as the simplistic answer, the one always trotted out because it sounds logical. 'Why do some adults sexually abuse kids? Because they themselves were abused as kids, simples'. & yet I would have thought for most being abused as a child would make them less likely to be an abuser as an adult because they know how wrong it is & how they hated the abuse? I think it is correct most child sexual abuse occurs within families & I think this abuse can carry on within that family for generations in some cases so I guess in that situation those being abused as kids might see that behaviour as 'normal' & eventually become adult abusers?

You're not allowing for the fact that abuse generally causes some degree of warping to the developing psyche of a child. In my own case it manifested as self-destructiveness that led to me doing deliberately-dangerous things, and indulging in substance abuse, but I don't believe it's counter-intuitive for an abusee to become an abuser - a problem with developmental interruption is that abuse can be normalised,and not just in families with multi-generational histories of intrafamilial abuse, but in "incidental" victims too, as a way for the abusee to be able to exist within their own heads without the dissonances causing psychosis

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I'm not calling anywhere civilised, I didn't bring that term up. Where do you think is civilised?

In the context of this thread the UK is civilised. Our laws allow zero tolerance for offending paedophiles regarding child sexual abuse physical or 'virtual' ie drawn images & so on & our laws have been tightened over the years. We even prosecute UK citizens in the UK if there is evidence they have abused kids abroad. The publicity given to it makes both adults & children more aware of the type of behaviour that might suggest an individual is a potential abuser. There are no concessions made to those sexually attracted to kids, unlike Japan apparently. Obviously it will not stop kids being abused but it will certainly help because paedos know that if they offend & are caught they will spend years in jail, nobody will try to 'understand' them & see them as sick & needing treatment they will be treated as criminals. I think this is a deterrent that works because(probably)most paedos are not otherwise evil thieves & brigands they are normal working men with families & if they understand that giving into temptation will destroy their lives they might resist temptation. Whatever, it is hard to see how UK law could be made any tighter than it is now.

 

[dylanredefined]

I agree, I think cartoons of naked children should be banned as well, but I still don't really think we're close to any serious solution to any of the issues.

I think it depends on the cartoon. Blanket bans normally gets someone bringing up a ridiculous example. Which undermines the good intentions to get rid of vile stuff.

Jooz are the leaders of the world. We control the Masons, the Illuminati, international banking and the Womens' Institute.We are everywhere, and control everything.

Can you do something about the rain then?

 

[frogwoman]

30%? It can't be as high as that?

From what has been determined from research, a minority (about 30% IIRC) "are born with"/develop at an early age a sexual orientation towards children (this can be for many reasons,although the best-known and most easily-understood is experience of abuse by the person who goes on to become anabuser). The remaining majority are instrumental paedophiles - people who sexually assault and rape children because they're even less likely to be caught for doing so, than for doing so to adults. Experts have some idea, but the ethical problems around researching perpetrators and victims directly are vast and thorny
The element of social construction in paedophilia tends to be how "we" view and react to those who fit the category "paedophile". Paedophilia is socially-constructed insofar as how the category is read varies across cultures,and sometimes within cultures.

 

[Spymaster]

30%? It can't be as high as that?

I think he means 30% of paedo's rather than 30% of the population!

 

[ViolentPanda]

^^^^This.

 

[frogwoman]

^^^^This.

Good

So what about the other 60%? Isn't it true that not all child molesters are actually paedos, and they are just random opportunist rapists?

 

[DotCommunist]

Jooz are the leaders of the world. We control the Masons, the Illuminati, international banking and the Womens' Institute.We are everywhere, and control everything.

I hear you also rig pub quizzes so I always lose them Its an injustice, is what it is

 

[frogwoman]

Are they researching convicted paedos here? Surely that population might be a bit different from paedos in general?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Good

So what about the other 60%? Isn't it true that not all child molesters are actually paedos, and they are just random opportunist rapists?

That's pretty much what I said in my post.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are they researching convicted paedos here? Surely that population might be a bit different from paedos in general?

Just convicts, and yes, the "hidden" paedophiles may have a different demographic breakdown.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I hear you also rig pub quizzes so I always lose them Its an injustice, is what it is

That's Worshipful Brother Smith who mandated that. Says you bullied him at school or some such.