(no subject)
When discussing the Etoro people of New Guinea and their tradition of young boys orally draining the balls of elders, I came to the realization that I will likely never see a pornographic image of a child in my lifetime. Not that I would want to see a pornographic image of a child for any sexual/self-gratifying purposes; I just feel that it's taboo in this country garners curiosity. The internet has made me desensitized to many of the world's atrocities, some of which include pictures and/or videos of:
-Parents who grieve over their stillborn or miscarried "children" by dressing them up and taking pictures.
-Furries, Zoophiles, Plushies and any other combination of anime/sexual deviancy/animals.inanimate objects that can be imagined.
-Headless or bodyless fetuses, sometimes because they are being eaten.
-PETA
-The infamous "Dog-in-the-Bathtub" trick, when, while a man's penis is inserted in a woman's vagina, his balls are also lodged in her ass. (See: "Booya video")
-Either one of humanity's worst offenders or best satirists: http://www.godhatesfags.com
-Brian Peppers
And so on.
By no means would I ever think to defend a child molester, though I am (somewhat) perturbed by the damnation of an individual on the grounds of being merely attracted to children. I digress, and therefore pose this question; could one argue that making child pornography is without a doubt a serious crime but that owning or viewing it could be a victimless crime? This is not to say that I would be the first in line to purchase a copy of Lolita Magazine once it hit newsstands, but merely suggesting that the depiction of a sexual act involving a child is no worse than a video of a beheading or any similar harmful act. After all, weeks went by when one couldn't avoid seeing the disturbing photos that emanated from the Abu Gharib prison scandal, yet when the kiddie porn scandals of Michael Jackson, Pete Townshend and Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) hit the news, there was no way for us to decide for ourselves when the accused celebrities put their alleged crimes to question.
The idea of a pedophilia has always fascinated me; how does it happen? Is it really just as natural an attraction or - dare I say? - anomaly as that of a homosexual? Gays may argue that the comparison is unfair, but what would a pedophile think? NAMBLA certainly would agree. And, after all, homosexuals have and still are persecuted for sexual urges in which they cannot control. The only difference of course is the gigantic x-factor which children add to the equation, specifically the idea that children can easily be corrupted (though I refuse to believe in the concept that children are pure and innocent).
NAMBLA's "official" stance is that they do not condone rape or molestation of any kind, yet contend that a consenting relationship between two people (regardless of age) is a beautiful thing. There are obvious flaws in their argument, but the mere fact that there are so many pederasts in North America alone to create such an organization suggests that the sexual attraction to a child is not merely a minuscule phenomenon.
I feel as if I'm not being clear enough: I don't want the idea to come across that I am for pedophilia or for the legalization of kiddie porn, but rather putting to question societal beliefs about said topics. If we can get over the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, could the same be done for pedophiles? This is not to say that the act of child molestation/rape isn't a choice, but the mere attraction - how could anyone support the notion that a person would choose to be attracted to children other than using silly, outdated arguments based around terms like "evil" and allusions to the "devil"?
There is no answer, I feel, or at least I'm in no place right now to supply one. I just felt it important to play devil's advocate in this scenario. Too frequently do we accept the blacks and whites of the world, which is precisely what I am against. I believe that the only true evils in the world are the consequences of irrational people who believe such a thing exists.
Also:
What did the pedophile say once he got out of jail?
I feel like a kid again!
Alex
-Parents who grieve over their stillborn or miscarried "children" by dressing them up and taking pictures.
-Furries, Zoophiles, Plushies and any other combination of anime/sexual deviancy/animals.inanimate objects that can be imagined.
-Headless or bodyless fetuses, sometimes because they are being eaten.
-PETA
-The infamous "Dog-in-the-Bathtub" trick, when, while a man's penis is inserted in a woman's vagina, his balls are also lodged in her ass. (See: "Booya video")
-Either one of humanity's worst offenders or best satirists: http://www.godhatesfags.com
-Brian Peppers
And so on.
By no means would I ever think to defend a child molester, though I am (somewhat) perturbed by the damnation of an individual on the grounds of being merely attracted to children. I digress, and therefore pose this question; could one argue that making child pornography is without a doubt a serious crime but that owning or viewing it could be a victimless crime? This is not to say that I would be the first in line to purchase a copy of Lolita Magazine once it hit newsstands, but merely suggesting that the depiction of a sexual act involving a child is no worse than a video of a beheading or any similar harmful act. After all, weeks went by when one couldn't avoid seeing the disturbing photos that emanated from the Abu Gharib prison scandal, yet when the kiddie porn scandals of Michael Jackson, Pete Townshend and Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) hit the news, there was no way for us to decide for ourselves when the accused celebrities put their alleged crimes to question.
The idea of a pedophilia has always fascinated me; how does it happen? Is it really just as natural an attraction or - dare I say? - anomaly as that of a homosexual? Gays may argue that the comparison is unfair, but what would a pedophile think? NAMBLA certainly would agree. And, after all, homosexuals have and still are persecuted for sexual urges in which they cannot control. The only difference of course is the gigantic x-factor which children add to the equation, specifically the idea that children can easily be corrupted (though I refuse to believe in the concept that children are pure and innocent).
NAMBLA's "official" stance is that they do not condone rape or molestation of any kind, yet contend that a consenting relationship between two people (regardless of age) is a beautiful thing. There are obvious flaws in their argument, but the mere fact that there are so many pederasts in North America alone to create such an organization suggests that the sexual attraction to a child is not merely a minuscule phenomenon.
I feel as if I'm not being clear enough: I don't want the idea to come across that I am for pedophilia or for the legalization of kiddie porn, but rather putting to question societal beliefs about said topics. If we can get over the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, could the same be done for pedophiles? This is not to say that the act of child molestation/rape isn't a choice, but the mere attraction - how could anyone support the notion that a person would choose to be attracted to children other than using silly, outdated arguments based around terms like "evil" and allusions to the "devil"?
There is no answer, I feel, or at least I'm in no place right now to supply one. I just felt it important to play devil's advocate in this scenario. Too frequently do we accept the blacks and whites of the world, which is precisely what I am against. I believe that the only true evils in the world are the consequences of irrational people who believe such a thing exists.
Also:
What did the pedophile say once he got out of jail?
I feel like a kid again!
Alex