The sad and obvious answer is that there just isn’t much market for sexual abuse photos of aging government plenipotentiaries. This was the best he could do for trading stock!
Right, we agree, and I agree on the point “more than you know about”. The things that come out from friends after years of quiet suffering.
I in no way advocate euthanasia, but want people to really get just how damaging the effects of abuse are, so that they get that any activities they have in any corollary of the field has consequent impact, of some sort.
Paedophilia is demonic, plain and simple. If someone is mentally imbalanced, I see no defence - the safe nurture of children far outweighs any other arguments.
From this thread, I feel a “you’re either with us, or against us” line coming on. I stand vehemently opposed to sexual abuse, and to the publication of images or videos of that, and to any creeping non-contra arguments. They make me shiver.
I think, essentially, we’re on the same page. Just wanted to voice.
2 Likes
He was, indeed, thinking of the children…
3 Likes
All this has happened before. All this will happen again.
5 Likes
The problem is that there is a qualitative difference between “images of the physical, non-sexual abuse of children” and “images of the sexual abuse of children.”
“Child abuse” has a well-understood meaning, and it is not commonly understood to include sexual assault. For the same reason that we differentiate between “assault and battery” and “rape,” it is useful in criminal, social and policy contexts to distinguish between someone who commits a crime by hitting a child and someone who commits a crime by raping a child.
Speaking as someone who has to write about this subject – largely in the context of Internet censorship - I’m here to tell you that it’s very, very awkward to try and write “images of children being sexually abused” instead of “child porn.” For one thing, a sizable portion of the audience is unlikely to understand what you mean (and when they do understand, it’s because they’re thinking, “Oh, you mean child porn!”)
I take your meaning that pornography isn’t exactly the same thing as images of children being sexually abused, but the term “child porn” comes a lot closer to conveying what is going on than “child abuse.”
I’m all for finding precise and crisp ways of describing things, but “child abuse” is neither.
8 Likes
Censors really only have one reason for controlling everything: So that you can’t see or hear what they don’t like - And that VERY MUCH includes what censors themselves do behind our backs.
They’re like gay-hating religious freaks - I firmly believe that most of them are projecting what they believe to be loathsome about themselves onto others, and they’d never be brave or honest enough to come out of their respective closets - And they HATE those who choose do so, because doing so reminds censors that they’re cowards.
Mind you, I’m not suggesting that pedophilia is an acceptable practice; Just that, to us, it’s horrible - But in the mind of a censor, it’s just one of the many horrors that conveniently excuses their own choice of career.
1 Like
I’ve always had a strong image in my head of the typical child molester: slightly excessively neat but conventional, yet unctuous, perhaps from learning which pastors and boy scout troop leaders in my town turned out to be child molesters, perhaps unwarranted.
Anyway, I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard that, at the height of terrorism hysteria, the creation of a new cabinet-level department to specifically created to foster terrorism hysteria, and loony fundamentalists coming out of the woodwork to fight the new “crusade”, suddenly there’s a news item that these two men
have together built the world’s largest child porn database, so that they can help to “identify” abuse victims. Of course, only very important people in their departments were granted access to the images.
I’m still creeped out.
4 Likes
How about this guy, who was Jerry Sanduski’s boss at Penn State? His trial is supposed to start soon.
Look up some more pictures of him and every one of them creeps me out. He’s a sociologist who wrote about …(wait for it) … sex education and wife swapping.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions or anything but GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
1 Like
That’s what I suspect too. Just as homophobes are more likely to be homosexually aroused, it wouldn’t surprise me if the people constantly screaming about child pornography on the Internet were more likely to be inclined to download same. It’d probably be really difficult to find a legal way to study the question scientifically, though.
3 Likes
Holy child-porn apologist, Batman !
And you are an informed authority on child porn…how ?
2 Likes
Are you missing the point that if children, as in CHILDREN - like infants to 15 year olds - are being filmed in a sexual context that this is ABUSE ? This is abuse that is as bad or worse than having a parent beat the crap out of you ? These children are sexually assaulted on film, usually by a person who is known to them in a position of trust. Some of these kids have horribly messed up parents who financially profit from basically selling their kids to be used in this coercive and exploitative porn. How is this not abuse ?
1 Like
If they are old enough to consent to sex, then it is not child porn.
That’s not actually true. In the UK, children can marry at 16 (and consent to sex with their spouse), but cannot perform in pornography until they are 18.
2 Likes
Then this definition would vary by juristiction. I have no clue about the varying ages of consent around the world, or the ages that people are allowed to marry, and how this relates to the legal right to perform in pornography.
I can’t think of many, say, 16 year olds who can fully grasp the far reaching implications of being filmed doing sexual acts (see: many, many cases of devastating online harassment/humiliation by their peers when these images are distributed). I can also think of many teenage girls who look far older than their age, so being able to visually differentiate age gets trickier. However - no 8 year old will ever pass as an 18 year old.
I don’t feel great about describing a film of 17 year olds being sexual as child porn. I do feel that it raises many questions about the context in which the recording was made (romantic partner or a desperate for money teenage sex worker or a Hollywood film).
This explains that requirement that all the porn filters automatically forward content to PattyboyRock@gmail.com.
1 Like
I agree. I think that sixteen sounds like a very young age for marriage consent (it’s also the age my grandmother was when she married my grandfather, but by that point she was both an ex-child soldier and a Red Army deserter, and was pregnant with my father).
My point is that “age of consent” and “age of consent for the purposes of appearing in pornography” do not necessarily line up.
1 Like
Nixon went ‘easily’?
Odd; that’s not how I recall it.
1 Like
Prosecutorial discretion. If two kids bone in front of an iPhone, you use the law to compel them to delete their work, shake your head and let them go. If an adult is collecting the stuff, that’s a different matter entirely, regardless of how it was produced.
2 Likes
They have. We all have. Everyone on this thread has. Typically though, not knowing, people just wonder “what the fuck is wrong with that person?”
2 Likes
