Turn on thread page Beta

Sexual Deviants; are we too soft on them? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Porn that is filmed by two (or however many are involved) consenting adults (18+) is not the same as being a Paedophile or Raping (non-consensual) someone.
    I understand that.

    But surely the problem is harm to children. Watching Child Porn in itself does not harm children, it is a product of harm to children. Most people's reason for punishing people who watch Child Porn is that they are a danger to children.

    Well, in that case, using that logic, anyone that watches rough, or bondage porn is a danger to women because they have some sort of intent to rape a woman.

    Of course that's ridiculous. But the truth is the vast majority of Paedophiles will never harm a child. That is why treating them all as if they're 1 second away from raping a child is ridiculous.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Consensuality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James1977)
    Thats a bit extreme. Many people who go to clubs such as Torture Garden in London would described themselves as 'sexual deviants'. Their sexual desires deviate from 'the norm' but are not usually illegal in nature nor involve anyone other than consenting adults.

    Perhaps a rethink on what is included under the catch all 'sexual deviants' eh? The words 'non-consensual' are quite important.
    alright then, illegal sexual deviants should be hanged
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I understand that.

    But surely the problem is harm to children. Watching Child Porn in itself does not harm children, it is a product of harm to children. Most people's reason for punishing people who watch Child Porn is that they are a danger to children.

    Well, in that case, using that logic, anyone that watches rough, or bondage porn is a danger to women because they have some sort of intent to rape a woman.

    Of course that's ridiculous. But the truth is the vast majority of Paedophiles will never harm a child. That is why treating them all as if they're 1 second away from raping a child is ridiculous.
    Like you said watching child porn is a product of harm that has been done to children but those that are watching this are encouraging those that carry out the acts to continue harming children.

    I will no matter what anyone says group all Paedophiles as one who deserve a collective punishment.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Like you said watching child porn is a product of harm that has been done to children but those that are watching this are encouraging those that carry out the acts to continue harming children.

    I will no matter what anyone says group all Paedophiles as one who deserve a collective punishment.
    But it doesn't encourage. Especially not casual Paedophiles, which would be the vast majority.

    Maybe, just maybe with no money changing hands, the close knit rings would encourage each other. But watching does not encourage or create a market. It's not like they can have websites with advertisments on or something :rolleyes:

    I'm going to have to disagree with you then to be honest. And hope you never get anywhere near making Law. 50 years ago Homosexuality was seen as an abomination by the courts, and of course I'm not saying they're comparable, but where sexuality is concerned we need understanding, not ignorant abhorrence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by concubine)
    lolwut.




    I love it when people talk about stuff like this without even know what a paedophile is.
    paedos=children
    philia=loves
    paedophila= sexual interest towards children(which in this country would be anything under 18)

    And let me be even more controversial, since consent seems to be based on rationality how about we prohibit idiots from having sex or allow anyone who understands the implications to have sex and yes this includes 10 year olds.

    Should law be based on popular opinion/values or rationality because it seems to be the former and that's advocating stupidity and dogma.
    Offline

    0
    We should give them a good whipping baby, mmmm :sexface:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Steevee)
    But it doesn't encourage. Especially not casual Paedophiles, which would be the vast majority.

    Maybe, just maybe with no money changing hands, the close knit rings would encourage each other. But watching does not encourage or create a market. It's not like they can have websites with advertisments on or something :rolleyes:

    I'm going to have to disagree with you then to be honest. And hope you never get anywhere near making Law. 50 years ago Homosexuality was seen as an abomination by the courts, and of course I'm not saying they're comparable, but where sexuality is concerned we need understanding, not ignorant abhorrence.
    So why even bring it up?

    Homosexuality isn't the same as Paedophilia as no one is harmed (unless via non-consensual rape).

    Where do you get the idea no money changes hands? there are a lot of cases where money is involved, to think otherwise is ridiculous.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Hmm. Interesting.

    For one, I don't think possesing material you did not make, or fund should carry such a harsh sentance. And it certainley have you treated the same as those who make it. Contreversial, but take Child Porn. If someone only downloads and looks at it, that person has not harmed anyone. If they do not distribute it and have it only for personal use? I think it should be taken from them, but they shouldn't be classed anything like the same as a predatory Paedophile. Lots of people have secret, and what would be termed by society 'perverse' desires, to live them out within the confines of your own mind, with perhaps some visual stimulant is not harmful. Just as every man that watches 'rough' porn is not a rapist, not every person that looks at Child Porn will go out and rape a child.
    If nobody downloaded it, there would be no market for people to make it...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon1992)
    alright then, illegal sexual deviants should be hanged
    Not wishing to pick on your every point but legality isn't always a good marker either.

    Read up on 'Operation Spannner'.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexD14)
    and those who stalker or film women without consent?
    Why would a women consent to someone stalking them?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stratos)
    paedos=children
    philia=loves
    paedophila= sexual interest towards children(which in this country would be anything under 18).
    Nope.
    In this context it is usually defined as the sexual interest in children who have not started developing. Usually classed as kids under 13. Sexual attraction to teenagers is called something different (can't remember what, but it begins with an E)

    (Original post by simon1992)
    alright then, illegal sexual deviants should be hanged
    Really?
    So you think gay people in the 60's should have been hanged??
    Considering anal sex between two consenting males was illegal until around 1967.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Then you're an idiot.

    There is a massive difference between Predatory Paedophiles and non-Predatory Paedophiles.

    If you're not into making distinctions why not lock up everyman that watches 'rough' porn for being a rapist?
    This.
    If anything, we should be helping those who do not prey on children. Those who have the urges, but have not acted on it. If they are not helped, then they probably will end up preying on kids.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James1977)
    Not wishing to pick on your every point but legality isn't always a good marker either.

    Read up on 'Operation Spannner'.
    shall we agree to disagree? we all have our own opinions and this could go on for a while.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    So why even bring it up?

    Homosexuality isn't the same as Paedophilia as no one is harmed (unless via non-consensual rape).

    Where do you get the idea no money changes hands? there are a lot of cases where money is involved, to think otherwise is ridiculous.
    Because it shows the consequence of condemning a sexuality you don't understand.

    And if you read my earlier posts I said where money does change hands in cases of Child Porn there should certainley be charges, and they should be punished. But equally, a vast amount of the time no money changes hands.

    (Original post by ily_em)
    If nobody downloaded it, there would be no market for people to make it...
    And please don't be so niave. The way these things work is that it will be filmed either for self gratification, or for a close knit ring of Paedophiles, who either pay or participate. From there on it is pretty much leaked out on to the internet for free, maybe going through a secondary ring of payment. Be under no illusion there is a huge amount of Child Porn out there, and for free if you know only where to look, and who to ask. The average Paedophile is not a rapist. They are normally a perfectly normal person, just with a single facet to their sexuality. Often it is repressed and pushed back. They will perhaps view a few images, the more daring may download a video or two. But very few, very very few will take the risk of paying for such material. Few futher will actviley join a ring.

    These people do not provide a market for the creation of Paedophilic imagery. To argue that is to argue Media Pirates provide a market for the Music Industry, and legislation must surely be changed accordingly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Because it shows the consequence of condemning a sexuality you don't understand.

    And if you read my earlier posts I said where money does change hands in cases of Child Porn there should certainley be charges, and they should be punished. But equally, a vast amount of the time no money changes hands.



    And please don't be so niave. The way these things work is that it will be filmed either for self gratification, or for a close knit ring of Paedophiles, who either pay or participate. From there on it is pretty much leaked out on to the internet for free, maybe going through a secondary ring of payment. Be under no illusion there is a huge amount of Child Porn out there, and for free if you know only where to look, and who to ask. The average Paedophile is not a rapist. They are normally a perfectly normal person, just with a single facet to their sexuality. Often it is repressed and pushed back. They will perhaps view a few images, the more daring may download a video or two. But very few, very very few will take the risk of paying for such material. Few futher will actviley join a ring.

    These people do not provide a market for the creation of Paedophilic imagery. To argue that is to argue Media Pirates provide a market for the Music Industry, and legislation must surely be changed accordingly.
    I don't know how the porn industry works, sorry :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Nope.
    In this context it is usually defined as the sexual interest in children who have not started developing. Usually classed as kids under 13. Sexual attraction to teenagers is called something different (can't remember what, but it begins with an E)



    Really?
    So you think gay people in the 60's should have been hanged??



    This.
    If anything, we should be helping those who do not prey on children. Those who have the urges, but have not acted on it. If they are not helped, then they probably will end up preying on kids.
    I mean paedos and rapists
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Nope.
    In this context it is usually defined as the sexual interest in children who have not started developing. Usually classed as kids under 13. Sexual attraction to teenagers is called something different (can't remember what, but it begins with an E)



    Really?
    So you think gay people in the 60's should have been hanged??
    Paeophilia is generally accepted as the sexual interest in children who either have not hit, or are just htting puberty. The attraction to under age girls and boys whom have hit puberty is called Eabophillia (sp?) and has given rise to the 'Jailbait' subculture.

    Hope that helps
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I understand that.

    But surely the problem is harm to children. Watching Child Porn in itself does not harm children, it is a product of harm to children. Most people's reason for punishing people who watch Child Porn is that they are a danger to children.

    Well, in that case, using that logic, anyone that watches rough, or bondage porn is a danger to women because they have some sort of intent to rape a woman.

    Of course that's ridiculous. But the truth is the vast majority of Paedophiles will never harm a child. That is why treating them all as if they're 1 second away from raping a child is ridiculous.
    Demand gives rise to supply. Enjoying a product of a harm to children might not be same as harm to children, but it is still sick and wrong.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...use-background
    I know this might be an ad hoc argument, but how would you feel if your kid was abused by a a worker in the nursery and then this was used to give pleasure to other paedophiles on the internet? Even if those people did not actually harm the baby themselves- merely encouraged the original perpetrator?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ily_em)
    I don't know how the porn industry works, sorry :rolleyes:
    Well then, perhaps now you've read my post your opinion will change. And perhaps in future you'd like to educate yourself on a topic before you make such ignorant assertions? Especially in such sensitive areas as these.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think we would do well to follow the example of Scandinavian countries and some areas of America. Currently sex offenders re-offend at a rate well above 50%, meaning that when we release them after their o so short prison sentences they are more likely to re-offend than they are not to. If they are chemically castrated this figure drops right down to about 5%. The vast majority of sexual crime is committed by pyschopaths who see nothing wrong with what they do, so the only way to stop them is either permanent incarceration or removing their sexual urges.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.