Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ViolentPanda said:
Just convicts, and yes, the "hidden" paedophiles may have a different demographic breakdown.
Click to expand...
I mentioned this earlier, ie your good mate married with 3 kids might be a paedo, but If he does not offend in any way then you will never know. Plenty of men might be like this. There is no way in the UK they can talk about it without their lives being altered irrevocably so they will keep it a secret. Tbf, if they do not offend then they do not need help. Nobody can have any idea what % of the population is sexually attracted to kids.
 
SaskiaJayne said:
Oh I see now I'm anti Muslim am I? So because tradition in some Muslim countries still condones 'child marriage' thats ok then, yes? Tell me about these 'daft ideas'.

Go back to the op subject. If a country condones any form of what might be considered child sexual abuse then that abuse is more likely to happen because if paedos can get away with abusing then they will. Don't start bleating about race & religion, the thread subject is sexual abuse of children. That can & does happen in any country in the world, the only difference is that some countries have greater deterrents against offenders than others. Paedos from western countries travel to specific third world countries to abuse children. Usually against the law in these countries but there is so much corruption that western paedos can use their money to pay to abuse kids & get away with it because they can. To their credit, UK & other countries now have laws in place to prosecute their citizens who abuse kids in third world countries. A UK citizen was recently convicted in the UK of sexually abusing kids in an African country, so a deterrent to UK paedos who travel to abuse in countries with more lax regimes.
Click to expand...

So, civilised nonces travel to fuck uncivilised children?
 
SaskiaJayne said:
I mentioned this earlier, ie your good mate married with 3 kids might be a paedo, but If he does not offend in any way then you will never know. Plenty of men might be like this. There is no way in the UK they can talk about it without their lives being altered irrevocably so they will keep it a secret. Tbf, if they do not offend then they do not need help. Nobody can have any idea what % of the population is sexually attracted to kids.
Click to expand...
Well that's 'non-offending' paedophiles who must be by definition attracted to kids (otherwise we're all non-offending paedophiles). I think they're talking about people who abuse kids but who aren't caught. Or both.

It must be an utterly miserable life being both attracted to kids and having the control necessary to never express it. I would think they both need and deserve help if they want it.
 
SaskiaJayne said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the law doesn't apply to the rich, the well connected, the powerful. As should be blatantly obvious by now! So what you're calling 'civilisation' is really just "ahhh but the proles can't get away with it, they'll be deterred!" Which is pretty fucking messed up, don't you think?

Firstly there's the question of how much deterrent is likely to stop anyone committing offences. I'm sure it does stop some people from committing offences but as you recognize yourself it's impossible to know how many - what makes you think there are significant numbers of people who would commit offences if they thought there were no consequences.

Secondly there's the issue that since our 'civilised' society is pretty light touch if you work in light entertainment or you're an MP, and that this is obvious to people, those who are in a position which means they'll probably get away with it may even be spurred on to commit such offences because they know the lower ranks of society would not be able to do the things they do. When you think about the reports of organized paedophile rings and the sick 'parties' that many Tory MP's are alleged to have been involved in, it makes me think that for them a part of the thrill might have been their own sense of being untouchable and being able to depraved horrible things and get away with them.

Thirdly, you seem to think that only the rule of law can be a deterrent - there are other kinds of reasons why people would be deterred from doing this shit in every society! Even in societies where there is no age of consent, or laws around child abuse or whatever, that doesn't mean that any individual could just rape a child and be confident in experiencing no backlash from their community etc.

SaskiaJayne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Does it? Does the way that the media covers these cases make it easier for people to spot potential paedophiles? Do you think people read The S*n or the Daily Heil and think "Ooooh, I know what to watch out for now!"

The most likely kids to be abused will always be those who are vulnerable, who nobody will notice if somebody close to them is using their position of closeness to groom, threaten and abuse them. That's always been the case and it will continue to be, and it's also pretty clear that the 'deterrent' of the courts is not very good at safeguarding vulnerable children.
 
Some paedos will always offend, the laws in the UK cannot really be any tighter than they are now. Instead of trying to pick holes in my comments why not make some sensible comments yourself on how things can be improved still further?
 
maomao said:
It must be an utterly miserable life being both attracted to kids and having the control necessary to never express it. I would think they both need and deserve help if they want it.
Click to expand...

I think it's a case of degrees though - presumably the stronger the urge the less likely it is to be controlled? If sexuality is a spectrum then surely paedo sexuality is also a spectrum? And perhaps there are those who are more drawn towards the idea of having power over someone who can't resist or protect themselves as much as there are those that are sexually attracted to kids. There's a question around where sexual abuse ends and violent abuse begins as well, probably with a large cross over area of violent sexual abuse and sexually violent abuse in the middle.
 
SpackleFrog said:
I think it's a case of degrees though - presumably the stronger the urge the less likely it is to be controlled? If sexuality is a spectrum then surely paedo sexuality is also a spectrum? And perhaps there are those who are more drawn towards the idea of having power over someone who can't resist or protect themselves as much as there are those that are sexually attracted to kids. There's a question around where sexual abuse ends and violent abuse begins as well, probably with a large cross over area of violent sexual abuse and sexually violent abuse in the middle.
Click to expand...
I'd presume that both urge and self-control are scales but that's a whole lot of presuming.
 
SaskiaJayne said:
Some paedos will always offend, the laws in the UK cannot really be any tighter than they are now. Instead of trying to pick holes in my comments why not make some sensible comments yourself on how things can be improved still further?
Click to expand...

Read my other posts, I am doing. I only even responded to you to point out that what you were saying sounded offensive and didn't make a lot of sense, but you've made it pretty clear you don't care, so feel free to keep banging on about how civilized societies have fewer child abusers if you want.
 
ViolentPanda said:
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
Click to expand...

Quite. With me it was a huge complex layering of denial followed by a violent (to myself mainly) unravelling in later years. I've often been disturbed by the abused goes onto abuse explanations when people want to play the expert, although this is where research into nonces who have been caught and put through the 'system' is the strongest? Disturbed in the sense that I can find it personally insulting when a generalisation is made, depending on its crudity. I have ruined relationships because of my shitty behaviour (emotionally unstable and unpredictable in matters of intimacy), though.
 
SpackleFrog said:
Read my other posts, I am doing. I only even responded to you to point out that what you were saying sounded offensive and didn't make a lot of sense, but you've made it pretty clear you don't care, so feel free to keep banging on about how civilized societies have fewer child abusers if you want.
Click to expand...
Oh fuck off with your idiocy, It seems logical that societies with stronger laws & deterrents will indeed have less paedos that actually offend. All you are doing here is spoiling an otherwise sensible thread by making the usual accusations of racism etc. Stick with the topic, post something relevant.
 
SaskiaJayne said:
It seems logical that societies with stronger laws & deterrents will indeed have less paedos that actually offend.
Click to expand...

WHY does it seem logical, in the face of all the evidence? Why do you think that because something "seems logical" to you, that makes it a valid point automatically?

SaskiaJayne said:
All you are doing here is spoiling an otherwise sensible thread by making the usual accusations of racism etc.
Click to expand...

Get accused of racism a lot do you?


SaskiaJayne said:
Stick with the topic, post something relevant.
Click to expand...

You started this particular aspect of the thread, with your claim that 'civilisation' decreases child abuse, making it part of the discussion. Others who are responding to your daft fucking opinions are contributing to the thread and are posting relevant opinions BECAUSE you made a statement which others think is not just wrong but verging on dangerous.
 
SaskiaJayne said:
Oh fuck off with your idiocy, It seems logical that societies with stronger laws & deterrents will indeed have less paedos that actually offend. All you are doing here is spoiling an otherwise sensible thread by making the usual accusations of racism etc. Stick with the topic, post something relevant.
Click to expand...

I can understand your frustration. But whilst it might seem logical, but it might not work out like that in reality. Harsher laws and deterrent punishments might discourage victims from reporting crimes. In cases where the victim of sexual abuse has the abuse from within the family. Might it act as a disincentive to report the crime if the violator was to be executed, rather than a milder sentence that included opportunities for rehabilitation? Might not an abuser, given how manipulative they are, use the fact that they would be subject to draconian punishment, to encourage silence from the victim.

Further, I am not sure that the criminological evidence supports your assertion.

Given that paedophilia has such appalling consequences to victims, damages the character of the perpetrators and is socially repulsive - might there be more socially benevolent ways of limiting the harm of paedophilia, which are more effective than simple deterrence theory?
 
SaskiaJayne said:
Oh fuck off with your idiocy, It seems logical that societies with stronger laws & deterrents will indeed have less paedos that actually offend.
Click to expand...

There's no logic to your statement. It presumes a deterrent effect in a realm (criminal action) where deterrent effects are notoriously ignored - criminal behaviour usually being motivated by a combination of perceived need, odd-weighing and instrumentality - and that laws imply policing (the implication is weak at best for most crimes) of those laws. Policing tends to be managerialist, targeted and goal-motivated rather than holistically-addressing crime. As an example, one police agency chose to prioritise "internet grooming" as a policing target. They caught lots of "internet groomers" with no record of sexual offences, and a small handful of the less tech-savvy actual paedophiles. Many of the groomers were acquitted because sexual intent beyond fantasy could not be proven. Lots of money spent, lots of boxes ticked and crime stats showing that the agency was "addressing" sex crime, but not many paedophiles neutralised or exposed.[/QUOTE]
 
SaskiaJayne said:
Some paedos will always offend, the laws in the UK cannot really be any tighter than they are now.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're wrong. While criminal records checks are mandatory for many employment roles, they only address known perpetrators. Control (legal and social) could be a lot tighter - networks are focused on very heavily, but "lone predators" within and without the family are a much bigger (and harder to address) problem. The likes of Childline etc do some good in helping bring such people to justice, but they can only do so much - they cannot, for example, investigate claims, and there aren't enough resources within the criminal justice system for such matters to fund investigations, either. So many sex crimes could be prevented, but for the relative price of a happorth of tar, they're not.
 
seventh bullet said:
Quite. With me it was a huge complex layering of denial followed by a violent (to myself mainly) unravelling in later years. I've often been disturbed by the abused goes onto abuse explanations when people want to play the expert, although this is where research into nonces who have been caught and put through the 'system' is the strongest? Disturbed in the sense that I can find it personally insulting when a generalisation is made, depending on its crudity. I have ruined relationships because of my shitty behaviour (emotionally unstable and unpredictable in matters of intimacy), though.
Click to expand...

A lot of those who play the expert elide the most important proviso in the "...abused become abusers" equation, which is that it's always prefaced with "a small minority of the...".
 
...well there's pretty strong social deterrents that I presume the poster is referring to that will be less extant in societies with different ages of consent etc...not necessarily an excuse for racism ( to whit Jerry Lee Lewis controversy ) ...

..this may (?) perversely incentivise abusers to commit aspects of the abuse as much to enforce the continued silence of the abusee as much as being a central "requirment" of what they psychosexually "get off" on doing to the child...threatening violence etc ( cos they really "love" children )

...also PIE were very keen to rescind all these laws so must have regarded them as a barrier of sorts...although true the gig with PIE and their fellow travellers was to loosen up the "squares" and get these restrictive social attitudes changed aswell...so they could all "come out" so to speak
 
ViolentPanda said:
So many sex crimes could be prevented, but for the relative price of a happorth of tar, they're not
Click to expand...
Not snarking here, but seriously interested in your ideas to help prevent it. It's often remarked that Jimmy Savile would have passed a CRB/DBS check so there is clearly a long way to go.
 
bluescreen said:
Not snarking here, but seriously interested in your ideas to help prevent it. It's often remarked that Jimmy Savile would have passed a CRB/DBS check so there is clearly a long way to go.
Click to expand...

1) Keep all reports, whether actioned or not, within a live and nationally-accessible criminal records system for a statutory period. This would mean that the likes of Savile gradually built up a number of "hits" on the database despite being the beneficiary of prosecutorial inaction.
2) Legally-compel all professionals in jobs dealing with vulnerable people and/or minors to report incidents that are reported to them or witnessed by them.
3) Make more effort to counsel and unburden children who are acting out in ways consistent with the actions of abuse victims (people tend to expect such acting out to be sexual, but it can also be manic, violent or depressive).

Just three things I've thought about as possible methods of reducing sex crimes.
 
Ungrateful said:
I can understand your frustration. But whilst it might seem logical, but it might not work out like that in reality. Harsher laws and deterrent punishments might discourage victims from reporting crimes. In cases where the victim of sexual abuse has the abuse from within the family. Might it act as a disincentive to report the crime if the violator was to be executed, rather than a milder sentence that included opportunities for rehabilitation? Might not an abuser, given how manipulative they are, use the fact that they would be subject to draconian punishment, to encourage silence from the victim.

Further, I am not sure that the criminological evidence supports your assertion.

Given that paedophilia has such appalling consequences to victims, damages the character of the perpetrators and is socially repulsive - might there be more socially benevolent ways of limiting the harm of paedophilia, which are more effective than simple deterrence theory?
Click to expand...
I think you have start from the point that in the UK any suggestion of trying to put in place any sort of 'help' for paedos who might offend & looking more sympathetically at those who have already offended is a non starter, it ain't gonna happen. The demonisation of paedos in the UK is complete & irrevocable, for the foreseeable future anyway. It is a good point about sexual abuse within the family though, this is apparently by far the most common form of child abuse in the UK & I think the most difficult to grasp. While we can hate monsters grabbing kids off the street & be suspicious that teachers might be paedos, the thought that the kids across the road from you might be being abused by their family is probably the hardest one to get your head around. Yes kids being abused within the family are unlikely to report their abusers while still kids but others might have their suspicions & they are more likely to be listened to nowadays than in the past. I think its far harder to get away with abusing kids now than 40odd yrs ago(I was a kid then), I'm betting some 70yr old paedos did not in their wildest dreams expect to spend their dotage behind bars for crime committed 30yrs ago so I think progress is being made, in the UK anyway.
 
ViolentPanda said:
1) Keep all reports, whether actioned or not, within a live and nationally-accessible criminal records system for a statutory period. This would mean that the likes of Savile gradually built up a number of "hits" on the database despite being the beneficiary of prosecutorial inaction.
2) Legally-compel all professionals in jobs dealing with vulnerable people and/or minors to report incidents that are reported to them or witnessed by them.
3) Make more effort to counsel and unburden children who are acting out in ways consistent with the actions of abuse victims (people tend to expect such acting out to be sexual, but it can also be manic, violent or depressive).

Just three things I've thought about as possible methods of reducing sex crimes.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Those things might well help. My worry about #1 is the vindictive report though I have no idea whether it's remotely as common IRL as in the MRA imagination.

#2. Mandated reporting is the law in some parts of the world. It's a blunt instrument though, particularly as in most cases all anyone knows about is rumour and conjecture. It risks criminalising people (bystanders) who aren't. It would be good if there were some other way of impressing on bystanders the responsibility for intelligent action, and providing an informal means for conveying worries. Though I can see how this could be abused, I'm not convinced we shouldn't introduce legislation.

#3. Absolutely! This above all. Does it need legislation to effect a change of mindset, and does it need funding to provide the counselling? We as a society really need to start listening to children.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Many of the groomers were acquitted because sexual intent beyond fantasy could not be proven. Lots of money spent, lots of boxes ticked and crime stats showing that the agency was "addressing" sex crime, but not many paedophiles neutralised or exposed
Click to expand...
I think you can file this one with the point made earlier about police raiding home of suspected paedo & finding proof that he does indeed have sexual interest in kids. They find large collections of pics of kids cut from clothing catalogues etc & they find kids underwear he has bought. He has committed no crime so he cannot be charged. What this does do is expose this person's sexual interest in kids & one might hope in some cases would put the fear of god into them & stop them going any further. Correct me if I am wrong but I think this sort of behaviour even if not criminal will result in individual's name being placed on record & coming up in advanced check should they ever apply for a position working with kids?
 
SaskiaJayne said:
I think you can file this one with the point made earlier about police raiding home of suspected paedo & finding proof that he does indeed have sexual interest in kids. They find large collections of pics of kids cut from clothing catalogues etc & they find kids underwear he has bought. He has committed no crime so he cannot be charged. What this does do is expose this person's sexual interest in kids & one might hope in some cases would put the fear of god into them & stop them going any further. Correct me if I am wrong but I think this sort of behaviour even if not criminal will result in individual's name being placed on record & coming up in advanced check should they ever apply for a position working with kids?
Click to expand...

I don't think it does. You have to commit a crime for the police to monitor you. Unless they think you may be a terrorist in the future.
 
Looking at the CPS website on pornographic non photographic images of children, I noticed it mentions computer generated images, cartoons and drawings. Manga is also specifically mentioned as though if Manga had not been specified then it would not have been covered under the other categories. Is this because no child in the world looks like a Manga character? So what if someone wanted to create something that was not quite Manga or say alien like? Also, it does not seem sex dolls of children are covered.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Poll
How can we guard against the Military Industrial Complex?
Replies
3
Views
353
dilute micro
dilute micro
moono
CIA flights raise complex debate
Replies
12
Views
749
moono
moono
Back
Top Bottom