Because the man originaly charged with rape was let to sexual asualt?
You be the judge - sexual assault?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
- Status
Think that through. If I ask, "Should cannabis be illegal?" and , "Should pianos be illegal?" is that equating cannabis with pianos?
What?
given your actions in this thread perhaps you should.
yeah we got that what i and some other are as to why?
or you know the standard way when dismess women rape victims. you are using intentially ambigious statements and pretending they are clear. your better than this. your analogy just assumes kate is lying. is she?
so know you accusing me of defaming him. your full of shit. and your actively misrepresenting my statement and ignoring the fact that the only people holding your view are you and someone being evasive as all hell as to why he is questioning the illegality of types of child porn. the fact other have questioned calling me disgusting begs the question why it seems like only you feels asking why child porn is illegal is an innocent endeavor.
No but again thats different that is two different categories being discussed. in your example your taking two items in the same catergory one that is harmless and one that is harmless and acting as if their the same.
You said yourself that homosexuality and child pornography were different because of consent.
yes as in an adult is capable of consent a child cannot. why do you insist on digging your self deeper in this hole. im getting really uncomfortable interacting with because of just how skeevy your being. i went into this thinking your just kind of an idiot to the nuances to this but you keep making yourself look like you want the sexualization of children to be normalized.
I can't do anything about your delusions.
It’s not delusional. It’s rational. That you can’t take responsibility for the implications of your continuing defense of sexual misconduct does not make me delusional. I’m clearly not delusional if most other people are having the same read
I mentioned that in the OP.
Should sitting down in a shopping center food hall next to a number of small children with obvious ulterior intent be illegal?
The problem with most pedophiles is that they, like many obnoxious people, take advantage of the legal system to protect their intent.
Like what happens when a man deliberately harasses a female train passenger by standing too close. ( in a relatively empty carriage)
Is it illegal? Should it be illegal?
Taking advantage of the limitations of the legal system and abusing their position of power.
Woman says " Go away! You're too close"
Man says "Why, I am not breaking any laws am I?"
Another example:
Older male stands and waits outside primary school gates with intent. Waiting for the end of school day. Should standing outside a school be illegal? Should he be arrested?
What charges could they lay against him?
Why is loitering illegal in many cases?
Pedophiles will almost always abuse the intent of the legal system and claim a god-given right to private intent.
It seems to me that the question being asked by SSB is one about the sanctity of the mind. That what a person does with his/her mind should not be the concern of the legal system.
...and if this is the case then SSB is correct.
It is one of the dilemmas that a society faces when confronted with the need to manage extreme minds with in it's community with no easy solution.
The problem with most pedophiles is that they, like many obnoxious people, take advantage of the legal system to protect their intent.
Like what happens when a man deliberately harasses a female train passenger by standing too close. ( in a relatively empty carriage)
Is it illegal? Should it be illegal?
Taking advantage of the limitations of the legal system and abusing their position of power.
Woman says " Go away! You're too close"
Man says "Why, I am not breaking any laws am I?"
Another example:
Older male stands and waits outside primary school gates with intent. Waiting for the end of school day. Should standing outside a school be illegal? Should he be arrested?
What charges could they lay against him?
Why is loitering illegal in many cases?
Pedophiles will almost always abuse the intent of the legal system and claim a god-given right to private intent.
It seems to me that the question being asked by SSB is one about the sanctity of the mind. That what a person does with his/her mind should not be the concern of the legal system.
...and if this is the case then SSB is correct.
It is one of the dilemmas that a society faces when confronted with the need to manage extreme minds with in it's community with no easy solution.
Yes,interesting post.The law is not the be all and end all. We can't simply learn the law and expect to live good lives by following it.
We have to use good judgement and even break the laws on occasion.*
As someone said "to live outside the law you must be honest"
Nevertheless we cannot live without laws and even though the law can be an ass we have to accord it the respect it does in fact merit.
As you say there are no easy solutions and we just have to keep pressing forward ,muddle through.
*When? Well in your hypothetical situation when dishonest actors stay just this side of the law but have a clear intent to do harm then we can and should cut a few corners.These days we can take overt photos of people who prefer anonymity.That could be a tactic against your loiterer,for example.
Last edited:
I wasn't going to but I guess I will any way.
About 16 years ago after becoming a regular at a local shopping center cafe it was apparent that the shopping center and surrounding area was a paedophile stalking ground. At this point is it worth noting the distinction between Ephebophilia ( attraction to post pubescent teens and paedeophilia which is the sexual love of prepubescent children.)
The shopping center was located close to a number of primary and high schools and attracted after school hours a significant number of children into it's food hall. Of course this was a classic invite to paedolphiles and Ephebofiles to play their "I am not doing any thing wrong if I sit outside Maccas and eat and perv" in their food hall routine.
True they were not doing anything wrong and in most cases they were invisible men that no one would notice. Even security camera operators failed to be concerned.
But some people did notice.
In conversations with security staff, they indicated their frustration in not being able to act on what seemed obvious to them and could only pretend to be unconcerned when in fact they were very concerned.
The region had a large criminal element as well including a number of Eastern European and Mediterranean organized crime groupings. (Later it became apparent that human child trafficking was a serious issue.)
The security staff could not act due to limitations of their legal limitations.
So I and a number of my pensioner cafe mates decided to infrequently, irregularly patrol the food hall as citizens. Doing nothing but walking through the food hall and on occasions sitting next to the perv saying nothing and then moving on.
Not so much concerned about the Ephebophiles but more concerned about the Paedophiles. Security staff unofficially knew what we were doing.
N.B.
The Paedophiles thought they were invisible.
We demonstrated that they were not invisible.
Over time and it took a number of years, the food hall and ultimately the surrounding region ( area) cleaned up. eventually leading to the closing down of the human trafficking that was centered near by (local martial arts studio) and today the shopping center is virtually free of paedolphile activity. No police action was required ( that we were aware of ), other than their occasional presence in the shopping center.
There is a lot more to it but that is the brief version.
The point though is that while the legal system is limited, a citizen has capacity to effect change by simply being present and vigilant and make the Paedophile know that he is indeed not invisible.
( One of my motivations behind writing the above is to warn those readers that have Paedophile inclinations that their activities in public places are not invisible once citizens are informed about what behaviors to look for.)
Last edited:
Just saw this edit...
exactly! The more overt the better.
The problem that appears to be present with Paedolphiles generally is that they lack a state of balanced self awareness or self insight. They have lost their ability to function properly in the social setting that they are stalking. Taking images overtly and making it obvious that they are visible ( even if innocent of any crime) forces the potential Paedophile to realize that he is missing something from his perception and instills a fear that he may be exposed.
On one occasion a notorious sex offender came to the food hall with an almost empty wire super market shopping trolley. Almost empty because he had placed a number of sweets and chocolate bars to use as child bait in his trolley. So as he sat there waiting we also sat there looking at him, saying nothing, passive like. Never saw him again....
From what you describe of your own behaviour, I'm surprised nobody suspected your motives.
It helps to clear vigilante action with the local law - even if only mall security.
sideshowbob:
Do you mean a drawing of a child having sex with an adult, for example? Could that be harmful to children? The answer is a very clear "Yes". See Bell's post #260, for some reasons.
It almost sounds like you're saying that people are unfairly prejudiced when it comes to pedophilia. Is that what you believe?
Maybe I missed it, but did you specify what kind of drawing you're talking about?
Do you mean a drawing of a child having sex with an adult, for example? Could that be harmful to children? The answer is a very clear "Yes". See Bell's post #260, for some reasons.
Sex between informed, consenting adults is rather different in character from the sexual exploitation of a child by an adult, is it not?
It almost sounds like you're saying that people are unfairly prejudiced when it comes to pedophilia. Is that what you believe?
Correct. The impacts of fictionalised violence on social attitudes and habituation are underestimated, if you ask me. Sure, fictional violence probably panders to some of the baser human insincts, so it is understandable that people are drawn to it. Perhaps the level of harm it does most viewers is tolerable, but there is little doubt that certain particularly susceptible individuals can be very significantly affected by it. I wonder if the average level of violence in our society is greater than it would be, were it not for the ubiquity of fictional accounts of violence.
If it was me, and I was not trying to dog-whistle pedophiles, I would be very careful about sending out this kind of signal, consciously or otherwise.
I can tell you, it would make me a lot more comfortable right now if I were to read a clear repudiation of pedophilia from sideshowbob. As things stand, I have some concerns that I'd rather not have.
Glad I’m not the only one
Bells
Staff member
On the first page of this thread, you literally argued the point that if the victim is not aware that it is happening, you asked if it was really assault.
And it carries with it this insidious intent of putting the onus on the victim. It is why so many of us did the rounds against you on this issue. Because you utterly fail to factor in how the victim would have no knowledge of the incident. Astonishingly, you saw more wrong with drugging the victim to render her unconscious, than you do with her being raped afterwards, because she's unconscious, so is it really a crime if she is not aware of what is happening to her? You literally queried if more "real harm" comes from informing the victim than from the assault itself.
Not to mention the rounds you made about how there has to be an element of threat, for example for there to be harm. So if she is unconscious, how can she feel threatened? You even jumped onto the belief that marriage carries with it implied consent, which it actually does not in most legal jurisdictions around the developed world.
There are a lot of issues with your argument "about cases in which the "victim" never has any knowledge of the incident"... You cannot even refer to it as a crime. Instead, you run with "incident"... You ignore the realities. And it is obscene.
If you sexually assault someone who is unaware of what you are doing to them, it is still a crime, regardless. It is still a criminal act.
But the subject of the drawing involves children in pornographic acts..
How many times must we keep repeating it..
It is still child pornography.
And is still illegal, because of the risk it poses to children. I have provided you with links that discuss virtual child pornography and it is still dangerous. Studies have shown that child pornography, regardless of how it was drawn, filmed, fictional or not, will still elicit a sexual response from paedophiles, many of whom have admitted that they watch it, read it, look at it before they offend. One even admitted openly that looking at such images makes him want to have sex with children even more and would make him offend.
Actually, it is not.
Your whole 'is it really a crime' spiels, that you coin as "questions", is essentially attempting to downplay sexual violence and rationalise it depending on how aware the victim is.
- Status