|
the more these cases come up the more i honestly think i lost faith in humanity and especially the justice system. none of these people who claim to judge rationally actually do it. none of these judges get checked on and trip on power until they actually are found to abuse it just like that other judge who abused his daughter.
|
On November 07 2011 05:22 casualman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 01:39 Dknight wrote:On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote:
Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content. There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless. You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol). Just as a side note. It's annoying to see pedophiles and child molesters used interchangeably. Not all pedophiles are child molesters just as all child molesters are not pedophiles. A child molester is person who engages in any type of sexual activity with someone legally defined as a child (in some places, 17) while pedophiles' victims must be per-pubescent children (for instance, a toddler). According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate. The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
Homosexuality has social acceptance because it's between consenting adults, where as pedophilic acts would involve a minor unable to consent. The two are similar in that they're both a preference, however in order for the later to take place, legal abuse must happen.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be looked down on for being pedophilic. Though the rational of enjoying the thought of intercourse with a minor is gross to me, so are many other sexual fetishes. These people are more than entitled to their fantasies or whatever gets their jollys off, but when someone actually gets abused (in the case of child pornography, molestation, etc) the line is crossed where it needs to be dealt with.
As for this case... Meh, way too much time for a bunch of images. Arguments of if or if not viewing CP benefits the industry indirectly through demand increase, I'd rather very hefty charges get dealt to the people actually raping children. Give people that view it a fine, maybe some jail time (such as this case with so many counts, a few years maybe) and a ton of community service/sex offender registration/etc. The amount of time in this case can only be from a knee-jerk reaction.
|
It isn't necessary be a genius to realize that the sentence was wholly disproportionate. I hope this problem can be resolved with adequate criteria.
|
Child porn is unacceptable, but I don't think life sentence to prison for possession of it is reasonable. The justice system is either flawed or seriously conservative in the United States.
|
If it without all doubt then I don't know, I don't know what the pictures or videos show or what made the court feel that it was warrant such a sentence.
Do I agree with it? I don't know, not from a swedish law point of view but can I understand it? Yes.
|
On November 07 2011 05:22 casualman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 01:39 Dknight wrote:On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote:
Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content. There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless. You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol). Just as a side note. It's annoying to see pedophiles and child molesters used interchangeably. Not all pedophiles are child molesters just as all child molesters are not pedophiles. A child molester is person who engages in any type of sexual activity with someone legally defined as a child (in some places, 17) while pedophiles' victims must be per-pubescent children (for instance, a toddler). According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate. The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case.
The difference is that children cannot consent. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and hell, even sterile heterosexual couples are only alike in the respect that those relationships do not produce offspring. So sure, one could argue that they're biologically pathological... if one was only considering the assumption that everyone wanted to reproduce and pass on our genetic traits. However, that's not everyone's intentions anymore (people sometimes don't want to have kids), and that's where the similarities end between pedophilia and these other adult relationships.
It's illegal to have sex with a minor, because they are not mature enough to understand the consequences and repercussions of that action. That's why it's considered (statutory) rape. Therefore, it's for very good reasons to accept homosexual relationships (two mature, consenting adults) and still be wary of pedophilia.
|
And here we come to something that may or may not result in a large hate war: what are these consequences and repercussions? I've seen this argument before, where people ask what effects would remain if the negative social stigma was taken out of the equation. I doubt studies were done to show how children react to this without society's dislikes placed on it, due to it being unethical, but nevertheless, this is something that should at least be discussed.
|
I think it's a bit troubling when people are so blinded by their knee-jerk reactions to this sort of thing (which is, of course, very serious child abuse) that all logic and proportionality gets thrown out the window and a witch-hunt ensues. The "he should be put to death" view is just baffling. Surely child sexual abuse is terrible and should be dealt with very harshly, but is it equivalent to murder? Of course not. And the man in question was only involved with it in a very indirect manner. I get that this sort of thing sets off some sort of limbic reaction of disgust (especially to those who have children of their own), but I think it's a problem when the topic is so taboo that the vast majority of people would never publicly criticize this sentencing (doing it online is a hell of a lot easier). I don't think jail time should be out of the question, but I feel that there should be a larger focus on rehabilitation and counseling for those who have committed these crimes but not directly harmed children. I think police resources should be focused on locking up the REAL perpetrators who are producing child pornography. I doubt locking up consumers of it will do much to stop production; unlike the illegal narcotics trade, I suspect it's more of a sick hobby than a rational business model that would shut down due to lack of profit.
|
On November 06 2011 18:57 Chrispy wrote:
I read a song of ice and fire, which involves 13 year old having sex with 30 year olds. Jail time?
I feel that sometime in the distant future society will laugh at how barbaric our laws are concerning child pornography. Is having sex with children wrong? Derp a herp no shit. Should a man be imprisoned for life for looking at child pornography? Derp a herp no he shouldn't.
Lion of Ireland by Morgan Llewellen has a similar scene, but that's more ephebophilia which while still bad, is far less bad than full-on pedophilia (IMO). Teens, while still not fully accountable, have hormones and a sex drive, and are capable of consent (even if poorly conceived).
|
On November 07 2011 08:01 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:22 casualman wrote:On November 07 2011 01:39 Dknight wrote:On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote:
Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content. There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless. You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol). Just as a side note. It's annoying to see pedophiles and child molesters used interchangeably. Not all pedophiles are child molesters just as all child molesters are not pedophiles. A child molester is person who engages in any type of sexual activity with someone legally defined as a child (in some places, 17) while pedophiles' victims must be per-pubescent children (for instance, a toddler). According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate. The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case. Homosexuality has social acceptance because it's between consenting adults, where as pedophilic acts would involve a minor unable to consent. The two are similar in that they're both a preference, however in order for the later to take place, legal abuse must happen. Personally, I don't think anyone should be looked down on for being pedophilic. Though the rational of enjoying the thought of intercourse with a minor is gross to me, so are many other sexual fetishes. These people are more than entitled to their fantasies or whatever gets their jollys off, but when someone actually gets abused (in the case of child pornography, molestation, etc) the line is crossed where it needs to be dealt with. As for this case... Meh, way too much time for a bunch of images. Arguments of if or if not viewing CP benefits the industry indirectly through demand increase, I'd rather very hefty charges get dealt to the people actually raping children. Give people that view it a fine, maybe some jail time (such as this case with so many counts, a few years maybe) and a ton of community service/sex offender registration/etc. The amount of time in this case can only be from a knee-jerk reaction.
Finally someone who shares my views. I feel for pedophiles, what conflicts they must have in their lives.
|
On November 07 2011 08:23 Dark_Chill wrote:
And here we come to something that may or may not result in a large hate war: what are these consequences and repercussions? I've seen this argument before, where people ask what effects would remain if the negative social stigma was taken out of the equation. I doubt studies were done to show how children react to this without society's dislikes placed on it, due to it being unethical, but nevertheless, this is something that should at least be discussed.
Is this a serious question?
There are countless sites that give good explanations; it's summed up pretty well on Wikipedia (under "Child sexual abuse"):
"Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.[1][2] ...
Effects
Psychological harm
Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life.[9][21] Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression,[5][22][23] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6][24] anxiety,[7] eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis, chronic pain,[23] sexualized behavior,[25] school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse,[26][27] self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty,[28][29][30] crime in adulthood and suicide.[11][31][32][33][34][35] A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified[36] and there are several hypotheses about the causality of these associations.[5][37][38]
A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.93 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused."[27]Long term negative effects on development leading to repeated or additional victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse.[8][26] Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism.[39] Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services.[23] A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former.[40]
Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children.[33][41][42][43][44] The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used.[45] The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force.[9][21][46][47] The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children,[47][48] and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments.[49][50]
Dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Main articles: Dissociation and Posttraumatic stress disorder
Child abuse, including sexual abuse, especially chronic abuse starting at early ages, has been found to be related to the development of high levels of dissociative symptoms, which includes amnesia for abuse memories.[51] The level of dissociation has been found to be related to reported overwhelming sexual and physical abuse.[52] When severe sexual abuse (penetration, several perpetrators, lasting more than one year) had occurred, dissociative symptoms were even more prominent.[52]
Child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays, after controlling for possible confounding variables, according to Widom (1999), who wrote "sexual abuse, perhaps more than other forms of childhood trauma, leads to dissociative problems ... these PTSD findings represent only part of the picture of the long-term psychiatric sequelae associated with early childhood victimization ... antisocial personality disorder, alcohol abuse, and other forms of psychopathology."[6] Children may develop symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from child sexual abuse, even without actual or threatened injury or violence.[53]
Research factors
Because child sexual abuse often occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[54] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse.[21][37][55][56] In a 1998 review of related literature, Martin and Fleming state "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[57] Other studies have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[7][21][37]
Kendler et al. (2000) found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins.[37]
A 1998 meta-analysis by Rind et al. generated controversy by suggesting that child sexual abuse does not always cause pervasive harm, that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as "consensual."[58] The study was criticized for flawed methodology and conclusions.[59][60] The US Congress condemned the study for its conclusions and for providing material used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities.[61]
Physical harm
Injury
Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death.[62] Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation.[63]
Infections
Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases.[64] Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported.[64]
Neurological damage
Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development.[65][66] Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"[67] Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects;[68] Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood;[69] Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse;[70] and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children.[71]
Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system.[70] Teicher et al. (1993)[68] used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected.[68][72]
Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.[73]"
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
Happy? lol. Plenty of negative effects of being the underage subject of an adult's sexual fantasy. Sex with a kid FTL.
|
On November 06 2011 10:15 aeoliant wrote:
he definitely has harmed children by paying some sick fucker for the pictures... he deserves to be put away. but no parole seems a little harsh (he has ~50+ years in jail...) maybe he has a shit lawyer
Well, it says that he probably didn't pay for them because it was from a file sharing website...
|
On November 07 2011 08:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Happy? lol. Plenty of negative effects of being the underage subject of an adult's sexual fantasy. Sex with a kid FTL.
The problem with the data you present is that it makes no division between statutory/'consensual' (as far as a person under the age of majority can consent) and non-consensual sex/rape. Violent rape is obviously traumatic regardless of whatever age you might be, but what about mere statutory rape? Further, it makes no distinction between a 'child' at the age of 6 or at the age of 17, both of which would be labelled as victims of child sexual abuse if they had sex with an adult.
To put it another way, if you were a 12-year-old boy whose wish for a blowjob from Megan Fox came true, how traumatized do you think you would be? Probably not at all, and any negative effects would likely be far less than that experienced by, say, a 6-year-old being violently raped by an adult.
People automatically assume that 'child porn' means adults molesting toddlers, but a nude picture of yourself at age 17 is also 'child porn' under the law.
|
On November 07 2011 08:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:22 casualman wrote:On November 07 2011 01:39 Dknight wrote:On November 07 2011 00:30 LilClinkin wrote:
Why is society so intolerant to the idea that some individuals may be sexually attracted to children?
Does any body ever stop to ask these people why they feel these sexual attractions? Personally I'd be fascinated to know what makes them tick. I have a hypothesis that many of them strongly correlate feelings of emotional closeness/love with sexual acts. Thus, when they want to be loving to a child (which is a normal human instinct) they unintentionally associate this with thoughts of sex involving the child. Maybe they don't wish to actually have sex with the child, but only to sexually pleasure the child? Who knows, I'm sure every paedophile is different and some may not have any logical grounding to why they feel their sexual attraction.
As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with a sexual attraction to children is the fact that any sexual act involving a child is inherently wrong, as a child is too immature to give informed consent to such acts.
Modern society has attempted to condition us to be tolerant of homosexuals, but historically they were shunned and stigmatised in a similar fashion to paedophiles of today. I personally have never been able to rationalise why homosexuals feel sexual attraction to members of their own sex, and I'll admit, the thought of homosexuals does intrinsically make me feel uneasy. However I'm a mature adult; I can accept the explanation from homosexuals justifying their behavior, even if I cannot rationalise it: "I was born this way, I just am the way I am, and you should accept and not judge me based on a sexual attraction that I have no ability to control". This seems quite similar to what a paedophile may say about their attraction to children. In my mind, you either simultaneously accept paedophilic attraction and homosexual attraction, or you dismiss both.
Remember, attraction and sexual acts are distinctly different things. If you are having trouble understanding or wish to deny this simple truth, consider this situation (this should be easy as the majority readership of TL is heterosexual males): Your best friend gets married. His wife is physically attractive to you: Blonde/brunette hair, well-endowed breasts, curvacious hips, assign whatever attributes you find physically attractive to this fictional wife. Would it be normal to feel sexual attraction to this woman? Yes. Is it a crime? Of course not. Feeling attraction and acting on the attraction to escalate to a sexual act are very different things. As I'm sure most (I hope) of you would agree, attempting to have sex with your best friend's wife, regardless of how attractive she may be, is a morally corrupt thing to do. Just the same as having sex with a child.
Hopefully you can see the distinction, and stop stigmatising paedophiles to the degree where it is considered OK for one to be locked up in jail for the entirety of their life.
Furthermore, for those who say that paedophiles who view pornographic content are 'supporting the industry', I have to strongly disagree. Child pornography (I assume) is such a niche market that the producers of content are most likely consumers of the content as well. Fact is, there will always be people producing child pornographic content. There's a growing following that is claiming pedophilia is a mental disorder. 'Pedophilia is biologically pathological to the extent that it causes the person to be uninterested in reproductively viable (i,e,, sexually mature, opposite-sex) persons. Given the reproductive significance of preferring fertile sexual partners, pedophilia in its stronger forms would meet Wakefield's (1992) definition of a mental disorder, and thus can be conceptualized as the result of disruptions in the mechanism(s) underlying sexual age preferences,' (Seto 2000). Padophiles have a higher reported PPG when viewing children than mature women. A lot of pedophiles tend to have significant mental disorders that include not finding mature women sexually attractive. They usually regress psychologically and actually believe the relationship to be mutually benefiting. This may occur as a teenager or when elderly. The fact that a pedophile is married is meaningless. You may disagree about child pornography but your opinion is simply wrong. It's estimated to be a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing insanely fast due to the internet. Organized crime is involved in smuggling of children for porn. By increasing the punishment for simple possession, it should significantly lower the demand for children and thus human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation of children is reduced. And those interested in child pornography..it's estimated to be 1 in 1,000 adult males (Hamish McCulloch, assistant director for trafficking in human beings at Interpol). Just as a side note. It's annoying to see pedophiles and child molesters used interchangeably. Not all pedophiles are child molesters just as all child molesters are not pedophiles. A child molester is person who engages in any type of sexual activity with someone legally defined as a child (in some places, 17) while pedophiles' victims must be per-pubescent children (for instance, a toddler). According to this argument, homosexuality is also a mental illness. Why is homosexuality gaining social acceptance and not pedophilia? What is the difference? In a vacuum, the two are identical. They both have non-standard sexual preferences. The difference is one victimizes innocent children, which does make it unacceptable. However, stating that pedophilia is a sickness is incredibly myopic because it is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Again, it is not the condition but the effect that makes it inappropriate. The troubling thing about this sentence is its effect upon judicial precedence. Disproportional punishment has the effect of incentivizing people with socially harmful desires to act upon their urges, because the justice system punishes these more drastic acts much less severely. What will probably occur is a successful appeal to a higher level court and a drastically reduced sentence, maybe 1~5 years in prison. The question is whether or not the punishment scale for sexual crimes will be reevaluated following this case. The difference is that children cannot consent. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and hell, even sterile heterosexual couples are only alike in the respect that those relationships do not produce offspring. So sure, one could argue that they're biologically pathological... if one was only considering the assumption that everyone wanted to reproduce and pass on our genetic traits. However, that's not everyone's intentions anymore (people sometimes don't want to have kids), and that's where the similarities end between pedophilia and these other adult relationships. It's illegal to have sex with a minor, because they are not mature enough to understand the consequences and repercussions of that action. That's why it's considered (statutory) rape. Therefore, it's for very good reasons to accept homosexual relationships (two mature, consenting adults) and still be wary of pedophilia.
I think his point was that pedophila should not be considered a sickness. I don't think he was arguing that it should be legal just because homosexuality is nor that homosexuallity and pedophila should be treated the same. He only disagree with the thought "Pedophilia is disgusting and not aimed towards reproduction, therefore pedophiles are sick". That was what people was saying about homosexuals just a few decades ago, but now a days people generaly agree that homosexuality is not a sickness.
As I was saying I don't agree with adults fucking kids, but I do think that anyone are allowed to think and have any sexual orientation they want. As long as it do not harm anyone else. But since pedophila by defenition will harm someone I don't agree with actually doing it.
|
On November 07 2011 08:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Happy? lol. Plenty of negative effects of being the underage subject of an adult's sexual fantasy. Sex with a kid FTL. The problem with the data you present is that it makes no division between statutory/'consensual' (as far as a person under the age of majority can consent) and non-consensual sex/rape. Violent rape is obviously traumatic regardless of whatever age you might be, but what about mere statutory rape? Further, it makes no distinction between a 'child' at the age of 6 or at the age of 17, both of which would be labelled as victims of child sexual abuse if they had sex with an adult. To put it another way, if you were a 12-year-old boy whose wish for a blowjob from Megan Fox came true, how traumatized do you think you would be? Probably not at all, and any negative effects would likely be far less than that experienced by, say, a 6-year-old being violently raped by an adult.
Pedophilia and the use of 'child' in 'child pornography' strongly implies pre-adolescent children.
|
On November 07 2011 08:59 AutomatonOmega wrote:Pedophilia and the use of 'child' in 'child pornography' strongly implies pre-adolescent children.
It's deliberately implied, but that doesn't mean it's true.
If you were caught with a porn video that has a 17-year-old in it, you would also be arrested for child porn and everyone would still call you a pedophile.
Hell, the OP's article doesn't even specify what kind of porn the guy had, so for all we know it's pictures of jailbait. The point I'm making is that the existing research, the law, and the media considers 'child' to be anyone under the age of 18.
|
The best part is that if he had raped one of those girls, he'd be out in less than 20 years!
|
Most things on the news nowdays are so difficult to take in.
|
While I firmly condemn CP and everything related, it has become quite clear that pedophiles are the modern witches, a subject of pure hatred from modern society, often to the point of paranoïa. It's sad, but I'll finish by advising people to watch M by Fritz Lang.
|
On November 06 2011 21:48 adwodon wrote:
I struggle to understand why he'd go to prison for this anyway, he's young, first time offender and if I read correctly wasnt distributing or creating?
He was distributing it, he had it in a shared folder on a large file sharing network. This warrants a harsher punishment, just like selling drugs gets you a longer sentence than using drugs. (Certainly not a life sentence though.)
On November 06 2011 23:28 idonthinksobro wrote:
I dont really know how the US court system works but isn't there a chance to appeal? It looks like a redneck judge just doesn't know what he is doing.
You are correct. He will appeal, the sentence will be reduced, and the judge is already being embarrassed by having the media cover this story and expose his incompetence. He just has to hope the judges in the appeals process are more competent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
