Kiddie Porn

[mcfbridge]

Ok, maybe I just felt like posting a controversial thread, but I also feel very strongly about this.

There are numerous laws against any type of kiddie porn. Even Literotica bans it.
I completely agree with the idea that pictures, films, videos, etc. of children in any sexual conduct should be banned. I also would like to see anyone who takes those types of pictures drawn and quartered.

However, we now have laws where a person who writes or possesses a fictional story involving children can be arrested, and I have a real problem with that.

While personally, I find pedophillia nauseating, I don't think that enjoying fiction is a crime. In a story, no real person is injured and real child is hurt.

I know that the arguement will be made that a person who enjoys those stories, might then do the real thing. But they might. Personally I believe that being allowed to enjoy their stories may actually prevent them from needing to experience the real thing.

Any opinions on this.

 

[brightlyiburn]

I suppose it depends.
If you want to write a story about an eight-year-old getting raped, I'd have to say thank god for laws.
If you want to write a story set a couple hundred years ago, or in a fantasy world where it may very well be unrealistic for a woman not to be married and having sex by eighteen, well, then you're kinda screwed.
Just can't win, I guess.

 

[CharleyH]

I am going to venture a guess that Literotica bans 'under 18' even in any reference or context because if they allow one, even "when I was a kid" they will be barraged with 'kiddie porn'. Lets face it, most Lit writers are not writing 'Lolita' or 'The Lover' etc, and I imagine (though do not know) that these laws (I assume new) are specific in regards to the definition of 'kiddie porn' because it would be difficult to arrest someone otherwise. Censorship and child porn laws have lived in a gray area where I live, for a very long time . . . are they tightening the laws in the states? Are they banning 'Lolita' or 'The Lover' or as I think Lady Jeanne mentioned Judy Blume novels on another thead, and arresting you for possession? I am not exactly sure what you are asking.

 

[R. Richard]

Ok, maybe I just felt like posting a controversial thread, but I also feel very strongly about this.

However, we now have laws where a person who writes or possesses a fictional story involving children can be arrested, and I have a real problem with that.

While personally, I find pedophillia nauseating, I don't think that enjoying fiction is a crime. In a story, no real person is injured and real child is hurt.

I know that the arguement will be made that a person who enjoys those stories, might then do the real thing. But they might. Personally I believe that being allowed to enjoy their stories may actually prevent them from needing to experience the real thing.

Any opinions on this.

Let me give you some background. You have undoubtedly seen the Coppertone billboard where a very pre-teen girl is having the bottom of her swimsuit pulled down a bit by a little dog to show her "Coppertone tan." For many hard core pedophiles, this is very hot stuff.

You seem to be making the assumption here that a hard core pedophile lives in much the same world you do. It does not! Things that you would not even really notice are very hot buttons for a hard core pedophile.

If a hard core pedophile is thrown into prison, it is heavily abused by the other inmates. The other inmates may well be murderers, rapists, arsonist, etc. However, they do not gladly tolerate a hard core pedophile among them.

Just something to think about.

 

[dreampilot79]

The problem with the legal system is in it's inflexibility.

Kiddie porn nausiates me and the practicioners should be drawn and quartered... or perhaps hung up by their tender parts till they died of starvation.

However.... There was a case here where a 45 year old man was taking pictures of a naked high school girl.... O.K.. I think he was sick... BUT she was only three weeks short of her 18th birthday when he took those pictures... and YES there was much more involved. and YES he had sex with her after he took the pictures.

He was sentenced to 15 years in prison....

If he had waited 3 more weeks..... no crime.

So there is a line drawn in the sand.... and once you define that line with words... it becomes inflexable. Three weeks becomes 15 years in prison.

I sound like I'm upset by this case and in fact, I think he got what he deserved because... He had in his posession a BUNCH of other pictures of young people in the same age group who could not be identified. The prosecuter was so intent on nailing this sucker because of the cases he couldn't identify or prove. The assumption was that he had gotten his subjects (both male and female) from somewhere else and encouraged them to have sex of all sorts while he photographed them. He couldn't be prosecuted in those cases because they couldn't say for sure if they were 18 or 17 or 16.

There is a HUGE difference between a 10 year old and a 17 year old.

I know what the law says.. but there is also a difference in what the prosecutor will do, depending on other circumstances AND on who the prosecutor is. I suspect he would have plea barganed this case to something much lower IF there hadn't been the other cases.

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

My rpoblem with the law is that there seems to be no distinction with moral grey areas and pedophilia. My mother was 17 when she married my father who was 21. They had dated a year and a half and the wedding was a much celebrated event. By today's standards my father would be a pedophile.

WOK's definitive interpretation of a pedophile:

~ Someone who is interested in a minor PRIOR to puberty AND a baseline level of maturity (a girl who hits puberty at 10, in my book has not yet reached a baseline level of maturity). But what I don't understand is why a person can be cosnidered mature enough to drive a car or hold a job (usually around 16 in most states) yet cannot be considered mature enough to determine their sexual partners. But then again I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because men shouldn't be allowed to be drafted to die for a country that won't even allow them to make decsicions about drinking.

WOK's definitive interpretation of what is NOT a pedophile:
1) An eighteen year old who has sex with a 15 year old.
2) Somone interested in younger women who have reached maturity AND display an adequate amount of maturity.

I know my interpretation leaves too many gray areas to be any kind of legal definition. But I know I am not a pedophile and I have been in the mall checking out a really great looking young guy and then horrified to see him walk over to his mother.

My question is... I live in the south...and the state I live in it is legal to get married at I think 14 or 15 (looked it up one time out of curiosity, but can't now remember with 100% accuracy which of the two it was) with parent's consent and at 16 without parental consent. It doesn't give restrictions as to the age of the marriage partner. So....what happens if a 45 year old man legally marries a 16 year old? Is he then legally considered a pedophile? Is he committing statutory rape? Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate any 16 year old getting married. I'm just asking the logical questions.

~WOK

 

[Halo_n_horns]

My personal views on pedophilia are that the perpetrators of these acts get off far easier than they should. Being in prison and gang-raped by 300lb men who don't possess necks simply doesn't seem harsh enough for these people. I've always favored non-surgical castration in a public forum, and performed by someone who has had his or her drivers license taken away due to a rapidly degenerative condition in both eyes. The evidence of the castration would then be presented on some sort of great wall for everyone to view.

But that's probably just me.

The only reason that I will agree with there being a problem with not being able to write and publish, or otherwise illustrate somehow, pedophiliac acts is because everyone should have a right to freedom of speech and expression.

I believe it would be appropriate to have a law in place that dictates that anyone creating such material should aslo have to create material that depicts the negative consequences of such acts to all parties involved. This would give a more complete and realistic view of such acts, and therefore carry a realistic message of the severity of comitting the acts. This could be incorporated into a fantasy scenario set hundreds of years into the past or future as easily as it could be incorporated into a contemporary time frame.

 

[Liar]

The dictionary definition of a pedophile is one who is sexually attracrted to pre-pubecent kids. Those that finds youngsters in their later teen years titillating are not pedophiles, but ephebophiles. Which I guess applies to quite alot of people.

The law makes no difference in some countries though.

It does here. If I sleep with a 16 year old with his/her full consent I haven't done anything illegal. Maybe immoral, but that's another issue. I still can't document the event though. Because that would make a private incident a public one, and I'd be thrown in jail for producing kiddie porn. I think that's a more sound way of looking at it than the 18 year ban for all kind of sexual activity.

 

[Liar]

So....what happens if a 45 year old man legally marries a 16 year old? Is he then legally considered a pedophile? Is he committing statutory rape? Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate any 16 year old getting married. I'm just asking the logical questions.

Is the general age of consent 18? Just asking because that's not the case in all US states.

 

[Op_Cit]

For those of you who are true believers in the cult of the omnipotent state, these are two fundamental aspects of law: 1) once you cross the line of a natural law there's no going back, and 2) law will always be both corrupted and applied unequally.

Those two are like natural laws of man's artificial laws.

The unequal application of the law is mirrored in people's unequal and irrational acceptance of law. For example:

Most here are in agreement that the law goes too far in this context of pedophilia, yet many here would be in favor of the legal evolution of rape into date rape. More specifically, in cases where it's one person's word against another (and maybe there's evidence that sex actually occurred), many people think it's OK to say "guilty" and send the bastard to prison.

In the old days, when it's one person's word against another, and no other evidence was available, one of two things happened: 1) case dismissed as it is impossible for a court to decide, or 2) railroad the accused because he is socially or politically unpopular.

In modern days we've eliminated the first of these, and added one by flipping the other around allowing political/social acceptance as a reason to let someone go.

And the natural progression of artificial law further into the realm of theory (from actual harm or foul committed into the mere potential to harm/foul) is well on its way.

My point in all this is to say:

If you don't agree with this particular perversion of law (or its unequal application), but you don't mind other perversions of law (like something so simple as a speed limit) that would be hypocrisy and a form of insanity. You need to either embrace the doctrine of the law (law is right because it's law), or evolve.

Evolve beyond your own personal perceived need for artificial law, and seek to bring others with you.

Or be happy as a pious supplicant to the bloody cult of government. Government draws sacrifices less often from it's ranks of believers. This is by far the easiest, you'd have to be crazy not to embrace the myth of law.

(Everybody seems to think Martin Niemoller's words were limited to one time and place.)

OK, enough from this idiot, back to the silliness...

 

[mcfbridge]

My problem here is that the law lumps actual acts, with simple fantasy and fiction.
Someone earlier said that if the story was about an 8 year old they'd thank the law, but if the story was set differently they would accept it.

First of all, let me say that I absolutely support Lit's decision to ban such stories. Not because I agree or disagree with it, but because a publisher has a right to decide what they will or will not publish. Since they own the site, they have every right to make the rules.

Law is something else. I have a problem sending a man to jail because he had a story about an 8 year old being raped on his computer. As awful as that sounds, if we go that way, sooner or later other stories will be determined to be too disgusting to be allowed and others will be arrested.

I strongly feel that law needs to differentiate between acts and fantasies. A person can dream about things, fantasize about them, but until he actually commits an act I don't see where he has committed a crime. This is way too close to the film "Minority Report" for my taste.

 

[Op_Cit]

Yes, but what do you mean by "commits an act"?

If the law says it is illegal to wear a baseball hat backwards, and you do, is this not "committing an act" which breaks the law? No one has been harmed, yet if society decides that this behavior promotes/leads to gang violence...

If the mob (a.k.a. democracy, a.k.a. ochlocracy) has decided that possessing a story depicting sex with minors is against the law how is this "wrong"?

How is it wrong to travel 90 miles per hour on a long flat interstate highway with no traffic for miles in either direction? In most jurisdictions it becomes a felony at a certain speed, again without regard to the conditions/traffic or the fact than anything happened.

Society has made a break with nature by deciding that physical harm/transgression is not required for something to be wrong. If you buy into that at any level, shouldn't you accept it all?

 

[brightlyiburn]

How is it wrong to travel 90 miles per hour on a long flat interstate highway with no traffic for miles in either direction?

Cause most of us aren't psychic and therefor can't know for certain that there isn't someone coming from the other direction just as fast or faster. But hey, if you want to ignore laws at the risk of your own neck, don't let me stop you.

There are definately laws I don't quite agree with. But a lot of them are there to protect people.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . a person who enjoys those stories, might then do the real thing. But they might. . . Any opinions on this.

How many super hero fans don red tights and . . . Detective fiction fans get hold of a snub-nosed .38, a trench coat, an old fedora and start beating up hoods in alleys to help some rich dame . . . horror fans forage in a graveyard for the materials to experiment on creating life in dead human tissue . . .

Why does reading never lead to CONSEQUENCES unless there is sex involved, and then it is so obvious that no research need be done to prove the contention – merely stating the fact is enough.

I am not aware of ever reading any kiddy porn (not even Lolita) so I can’t offer any solid proof, but I rather imagine that (amongst other motivations) being a paedophile is more likely to cause one to search out kiddy porn than encountering kiddy porn is liable to convert one into a paedophile.

. . . You have undoubtedly seen the Coppertone billboard where a very pre-teen girl is having the bottom of her swimsuit pulled down a bit by a little dog to show her "Coppertone tan." For many hard core pedophiles, this is very hot stuff.

You seem to be making the assumption here that a hard core pedophile lives in much the same world you do. It does not! Things that you would not even really notice are very hot buttons for a hard core pedophile.. . .

Actually, Coppertone first took the little girl completely off their ads. I thought they were having difficulty with the “Don’t be a paleface” motto, vis-a-vis Native Americans. Then she and the dog returned, with a safe mature figure. It’s all right to incense possible rapists, because no one wants to put any football superstars into the pokey!

The difficulty here is that I have never suspected that I lived in the “same world” as a paedophile, except that I DO have to live in the same world as a paedophile. Since I do, I object to having to adjust my behaviour because they have a problem controlling theirs.

I have a tremendous personal objection to toleration of any proven paedophile. The problem is, our society is persecuting (and possibly prosecuting) people who only intersect in some fashion within this world they must share with paedophiles.

What TRULY does piss me off is the statutory release of convicted paedophiles. When one is caught, convicted, and incarcerated, it will eventually have to be released. Meanwhile, everyone is aware that the recidivism rate of paedophiles is nearly 100 per cent. Still, once the paedophile has paid for its crime, it must be released, until another child is victimized.


The answer of course is to stop pretending that paedophilia is a criminal act. Reclassify paedophilia as a mental disease, and lock them up in a special facility where they can be studied, a cure can be sought, but until a cure is found, none must be released to prey upon society.

 

[SlickTony]

You have undoubtedly seen the Coppertone billboard where a very pre-teen girl is having the bottom of her swimsuit pulled down a bit by a little dog to show her "Coppertone tan." For many hard core pedophiles, this is very hot stuff....You seem to be making the assumption here that a hard core pedophile lives in much the same world you do. It does not! Things that you would not even really notice are very hot buttons for a hard core pedophile.

It is simply impossible to forbid images that appeal to everyone's various paraphilias. Well, I should say, it's practically impossible. "Things that you would not even notice" are hot buttons for someone. I suppose it might be feasible to prevent pedophiles from seeing and being attracted to images that would be innocuous to most other people, but can you imagine a world in which, say, children had to be hidden, where it was illegal to make, distribute or possess images of them? You know, sort of like the laws the Taliban created for women...

A fictional work involving someone having sex with a child would be disgusting, if it was written in such a way as to appeal to a pedophile's prurient interest (I'm not including, of course, Maya Angelou's horrific account of being raped by her mother's boyfriend). I know I wouldn't read it. Lord knows, that part in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is hard reading as it is. However, I have problems with prosecuting someone for his fantasies or writing.

In one of the other fora I used to be in, there's a woman who is currently in a peck of trouble with Child Protective Services because of this'n'that...mostly because of her polyandrous living arrangements and because of bad housekeeping...but what has added further fuel to the fire is that she writes fanfic stuff about Harry Potter characters, where she's aged them somewhat, and given them very active romantic and erotic lives...we do that here, don't we? I haven't read any of the stuff, because it's not a category I'm really into. The people in this other forum (who are now in a different forum) think this is just reprehensible and she ought to have her children taken away for that as much as any of the other issues. The stuff is actually very good; I've read it. I don't think there's anything that wrong with aging a character, and if a writer wants to do that, it simply indicates that the original writer did a good job of developing him or her. After all, a child is not just a child--he/she is a human being with a personality and potential.

 

[DrFreud]

Ok, maybe I just felt like posting a controversial thread, but I also feel very strongly about this.

There are numerous laws against any type of kiddie porn. Even Literotica bans it.
I completely agree with the idea that pictures, films, videos, etc. of children in any sexual conduct should be banned. I also would like to see anyone who takes those types of pictures drawn and quartered.

However, we now have laws where a person who writes or possesses a fictional story involving children can be arrested, and I have a real problem with that.

While personally, I find pedophillia nauseating, I don't think that enjoying fiction is a crime. In a story, no real person is injured and real child is hurt.

I know that the arguement will be made that a person who enjoys those stories, might then do the real thing. But they might. Personally I believe that being allowed to enjoy their stories may actually prevent them from needing to experience the real thing.

Any opinions on this.

At my local university here, they're playing the Vagina Monologue. As far as I've been told it's a story about the main character who's 16 being raped.
I dunno how this is legal.

Anyone care to comment?

 

[Kassiana]

I don't think there's anything wrong with writing a story in which someone under 18 has sex. Many, many people aren't virgins by age 18. I'm sure no one on here lost their virginity before they were eighteen, right?

I don't think there's anything wrong with writing a story in which a person under 18 is murdered, either, despite the fact that it might appeal to some psycho who wants to kill kids.

Let's string up all detective story authors! They're causing people to murder kids!

Yeah, right. My writing, e.g., a story in which a sixteen year old girl has sex with her seventeen year old boyfriend, is not endorsing pedophilia any more than Agatha Christie writing about a sixteen year old girl being murdered by her seventeen year old boyfriend endorses underage murder.

Lit can prohibit whatever they like. I think it's sad that they have to, though.

 

[yui]

At my local university here, they're playing the Vagina Monologue. As far as I've been told it's a story about the main character who's 16 being raped.
I dunno how this is legal.

Anyone care to comment?

Hi DrFreud,

Welcome to the AH!

Not to be difficult, but rape isn't sex. It's an act of violent assault that often has little to do with "sex."

Luck,

Yui

Yeah, right. My writing, e.g., a story in which a sixteen year old girl has sex with her seventeen year old boyfriend, is not endorsing pedophilia any more than Agatha Christie writing about a sixteen year old girl being murdered by her seventeen year old boyfriend endorses underage murder.

Pedophilia is sexual activity of an adult with a child. What you are talking about is consensual underage sex. To me, you can't compare the two.

 

[DrFreud]

Hi DrFreud,

Welcome to the AH!

Not to be difficult, but rape isn't sex. It's an act of violent assault that often has little to do with "sex."

Luck,

Yui

Hi Yui,

I haven't seen the Vagina Monologues but it's much more complex than just a rape story. It's about real women's stories about intimacy and sexual discovery.
I think the rape story was beyond "the act of violent assault that often has little to do with sex" into something the character enjoyed...

I was kinda hoping someone had watched this play and knew more about the particular story of the 16 year old girl, but apparently i'm out of luck

 

[NoJo]

I don't want to listen to a cunt soliloquizing for three hours.

 

[yui]

Hi Yui,

I haven't seen the Vagina Monologues but it's much more complex than just a rape story. It's about real women's stories about intimacy and sexual discovery.
I think the rape story was beyond "the act of violent assault that often has little to do with sex" into something the character enjoyed...

I was kinda hoping someone had watched this play and knew more about the particular story of the 16 year old girl, but apparently i'm out of luck

Okay, I googled. I took this excerpt from here:

"The play is meant to decry rape and other violence against women. Yet, the original performances of the play and the published book eulogize the lesbian 'rape' of a 13-year-old girl by a 24-year-old woman who plies her with alcohol. The pedophile section is entitled 'The Little Coochi Snorcher That Could' - Coochi Snorcher being the nickname of the little girl's genitalia. Her vagina's tale of seduction begins, 'She gently and slowly lays me out on the bed ...'

"After becoming more graphic, the little girl gratefully concludes, 'I'll never need to rely on a man.'

"Both by statute and by feminist definition, the "seduction" scene is rape. Nevertheless, the Coochi Snorcher declares, '... if it was rape, it was a good rape.'"

So the girl is 13 years-old, not sixteen. Eek! I will need to think on this!

Luck,

Yui

 

[stingray61]

Pedophile laws are there to protect the young because they can't protect themselves. In my view all pedophiles should be tortured, and set loose in any prison to get what they deserve. On one hand if you have a young person...say 15 or 16 and they "fall in love" with someone over 18, that older person is guilty of breaking the law but the younger person isn't. There have been children as young as 11 being put on trial for murder. Besides the obvious murder, and the fact that no-one usually dies in a consentual child/adult relationship how is that different from a 16 year old that wants to be with an older person. Both have broken a serious law but only one gets prosecuted for doing so because the younger person is "obviously" not capable of making that kind of decision (so says the law). Isn't the 11 year old just as innocent, and in need of protection as much as the 16 year old. Keep in mind I'm NOT speaking of a child of say 8 years old being raped or molested by an adult but of two people of approximately the same age that happen to be attracted to each other.

 

[NoJo]

Okay, I googled. I took this excerpt from here:

"The play is meant to decry rape and other violence against women. Yet, the original performances of the play and the published book eulogize the lesbian 'rape' of a 13-year-old girl by a 24-year-old woman who plies her with alcohol. The pedophile section is entitled 'The Little Coochi Snorcher That Could' - Coochi Snorcher being the nickname of the little girl's genitalia. Her vagina's tale of seduction begins, 'She gently and slowly lays me out on the bed ...'

"After becoming more graphic, the little girl gratefully concludes, 'I'll never need to rely on a man.'

"Both by statute and by feminist definition, the "seduction" scene is rape. Nevertheless, the Coochi Snorcher declares, '... if it was rape, it was a good rape.'"

So the girl is 13 years-old, not sixteen. Eek! I will need to think on this!

Luck,

Yui

13 year old girls get raped, I thinks that's only one small section of the show. Women who've seen it tell me it's very funny and moving. A friend of mine told me "anyone with a cunt should see it."

 

[yui]

13 year old girls get raped, I thinks that's only one small section of the show. Women who've seen it tell me it's very funny and moving. A friend of mine told me "anyone with a cunt should see it."

I have heard very good things about the Monologues, also, Joe. I wasn’t criticizing the play, just saying I would need to think about how I felt about a 24 year-old having sex with a 13 year-old. I also understand that the script has been changed. One of the alterations is that the 13-year-old vagina omits the more "inflammatory passages."

I worked in child protective services for several years, and given the things I have seen, I know I have difficulty being objective about even the idea of an *adult* engaging in any sexual activity with a child.

 

[DrFreud]

So the girl is 13 years-old, not sixteen. Eek! I will need to think on this!

Luck,

Yui

Yeah they changed that now to 16 (at least where i'm at). Apparently drew too much heat. The script changes all the time as you mentioned in one of your posts.

DrF