Quote: Retinend @ April 27 2008, 9:31 PM BST

I can't believe you give any credence to such defenses, you seriously believe that people download child porn for 'research'? How much would you learn from seeing pictures of a child raped? Would you only then realise how horrific child abuse was?

View original

I made no mention of research.

defences*

Quote: Retinend @ April 27 2008, 9:31 PM BST

You see nothing wrong with sexual attraction to children, just as a concept? ... The only problem is how people view it.

View original

Correct.

Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2008, 9:58 PM BST

I made no mention of research.

View original

That's all I could interpret from the two words you responded with. What kind of excuse is "curiosity", anyway?

Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2008, 9:58 PM BST

Correct.

View original

You're blowing my mind now. Are you 1). wishing for a more sympathetic societal attitude to paedophiles who AREN'T child molesters, or, 2). are you actually saying that a sexual attraction to children should not be a problem? Beep once for '1).' and twice for '2).'

Quote: Retinend @ April 27 2008, 11:48 PM BST

That's all I could interpret from the two words you responded with. What kind of excuse is "curiosity", anyway?

View original

A perfectly legitimate one. Have you never tried some food because you were curious as to what it tasted like, despite other people hating it? Have you not looked at porn - not necessarily child porn - which represents some form of fantasy or fetish which you've otherwise not thought of, out of curiousity? Never read a popular book, just to see what the big deal is? Watched a TV programme, despite widespread displeasure in it?

Quote: Retinend @ April 27 2008, 11:48 PM BST

You're blowing my mind now. Are you 1). wishing for a more sympathetic societal attitude to paedophiles who AREN'T child molesters, or, 2). are you actually saying that a sexual attraction to children should not be a problem? Beep once for '1).' and twice for '2).'

View original

*beeps thrice for all of the above*

Our attitude towards paedophilia is ultimately the same puritanistical view held against gays until very recently. It's not something one can help. What turns us on, turns us on.

Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2008, 11:56 PM BST

Our attitude towards paedophilia is ultimately the same puritanistical view held against gays until very recently. It's not something one can help. What turns us on, turns us on.

View original

A commons sense opinion that 99.9% of people are terrified to agree with, yet are fine with homosexual desire.

Quote: Charley @ April 26 2008, 10:52 PM BST

I notice a vast difference between opinions of parents & non parents.

View original

Father of 4 but i still understand that we are born with our sexual desire and that, no matter how distastefull, someone attracted to kids can no more change that than i can resit a Baywatch re-run.

How you deal with that in society i have no idea. i wonder, if i was born to a culture where people only had sex with donkeys and me having sex with a woman would be regarded disgusting.....would i risk rape or just get on with banging eeyore? .... however, along comes the Internet and suddenly you can get hold of tabo human porn! can i resit that? i guess pretty hard, especially if i have to put up with a donkey 9-5.

Well the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is that children cannot consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. Children are not sexual objects. And why do you believe that just because it's in some people's nature that we should tolerate it? Human beings have many evil things in their nature, part of living in a civilised society are rules - the vast majority of people (apart from the vast majority of this thread, it seems) believe that a desire to have sex with children is a sexual perversion, and is not an acceptable thing.

You're basically saying, by advocating the stigma of paedophilia as society's problem, that paedophiles have nothing to be ashamed of and should pursue their desires.

edit: I can't believe you equated looking at child porn with reading harry f**king potter

Quote: Retinend @ April 28 2008, 12:15 AM BST

Well the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is that children cannot consent to a sexual relationship with an adult.

View original

Yes. And that is the only way in which it is 'wrong'.

Quote: Retinend @ April 28 2008, 12:15 AM BST

You're basically saying, by advocating the stigma of paedophilia as society's problem, that paedophiles have nothing to be ashamed of and should pursue their desires.

View original

No. It should not be pursued, for the aformentioned reason. But the attraction itself is nothing to be ashamed of.

Interesting story leaking through today as it seems Hanna Montana nude photos have turned up....will be fun watching the media dealing with this as they all are gagging to show it (high school musical style) but she's 15 so their paedos if they do.

So far they are floating around with giant stars on the relevant/naughty bits along with disclaimers that its a "news worthy" article!

There were some rather revealing upskirt photos of Emma Watson (Hermione in the Harry Potter films) circulating celebrity gossip sites last week.

I saw her chamber of secrets.

Damn is she only 15 lol.

and there's the issue - they can post Hairy Potter pics because she's 18...but the Cyrus kid is 15 (and at a party full of drink and coke by all accounts!) so to show her pics (in full) is illegal.

Yet would someone seeing her posing (and she's posing) be regarded as a sicko? I often wonder if part of the hysteria around this issue is how big a grey area there is. Gay sex is easy, if you're straight your straight....but does looking at Sam Fox at 16 in The Sun make you a paedo?

To equate being a paedophile with sam fox at 16, or any other glamour model of that age, is ridiculous. To have sex with a girl between the ages of 14 and 16 would be classed as sex with a minor - entirely different to paedophillia.

Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ April 28 2008, 12:54 PM BST

To equate being a paedophile with sam fox at 16, or any other glamour model of that age, is ridiculous. To have sex with a girl between the ages of 14 and 16 would be classed as sex with a minor - entirely different to paedophillia.

View original

my point is just that - you have stated sex with a 14 year old is "entirely different to paedophilia", i assume you would be happy to regard sex with a 10 year old as paedophilia? Now, is a 10 year old "entirely different" to a 14 year old? And there is the closeness that many feel uncomfortable with.

Any other sexual preference that deviates from the norm (gay sex is the most obvious) is easy to distance yourself from because, even the most effeminate man is still very different to the most manly woman.

Ok, I see what you mean. But I do believe that the vast majority of ten year olds have not gone through puberty, whereas most 14 year old girls will have. But, it is a very tricky area - agreed. Was it not the case though that in the Langham case he was charged with looking at pictures of 'the most serious nature' or something like that. I don't know, but I'm certain that would involve children of younger than 10 being sexually abused. Even allowing for grey areas, that is totally different to jerking off over a 16 year old sam fox.

As for Langham being forgiven, I am undecided. The pilot I have just written has a part that he would suitable for him, and I'm certain he could carry it off. But I just cannot decide whether in the event of it being made, I could agree to him being in it.

If I was in your shoes, I'd be more hesitant if he were a member of the Labour Party than a convicted paedophile.

Quote: Aaron @ April 28 2008, 1:56 PM BST

If I was in your shoes, I'd be more hesitant if he were a member of the Labour Party than a convicted paedophile.

View original

Cruel but sooooooo true