You be the judge - sexual assault?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sideshowbob said:
Think that through. If I ask, "Should cannabis be illegal?" and , "Should pianos be illegal?" is that equating cannabis with pianos?
Click to expand...
Does cannabis have a history of being mentioned as being harmful in connection to pianos?

There is a known and well documented history of homophobia connecting homosexuality with paedophilia, along the lines that homosexuals are paedophiles out to harm children, as a means to deny homosexuals their fundamental human rights.

When you invoke homosexuality in regards to paedophilia, it comes with it a wide range of hateful commentary and actions against homosexuals. When you opine about how homosexuality was once also illegal when discussing paedophilia, you leave out the fact that homosexuality entails sexual relations between two consenting adults and in no way harms or exploits children.

Your comparison, your 'questions', invoke a dangerous myth, one with a history full of hatred, deaths, beatings, assaults, abuse, denial of human rights as a form of justification. In Russia, homosexuals are being systematically abused and some murdered because Putin and the Government invoked the comparison to paedophilia.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-kort-phd/homosexuality-and-pedophi_b_1932622.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...los-and-the-myth-of-the-gay-pedophile/517332/

So cut the crap about cannabis and pianos. No one is buying it. You are not stupid enough to not know of or understand what your comparison entails, nor can we be expected to believe that you are that ignorant.
 
sideshowbob said:
You said yourself that homosexuality and child pornography were different because of consent.
Click to expand...

Compared to your rape advocacy in general and diminution of consent in particular, I'm not nearly so worried about typos.
 
Bells said:
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.
Click to expand...
As an aside, studies have shown that the effect works similarly when it comes to addictions to drugs, gambling and alcohol. Say you're a smoker, for example. It turns out that merely seeing images of cigarettes or people smoking, or related paraphernalia (like a lighter, say), can trigger off a craving for a cigarette. Possibly even talking about or thinking about smoking can do the trick. This is also one reason why advertising gambling on television might be harmful, quite apart from arguments against normalising the behaviour.

There is some current investigation into treatments that try to teach a person to control the behaviour that often follows the cravings that result when they view such images. The aim is to teach people to regulate their own level of arousal when exposed to the triggering images or situations.
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
Again, I'm comparing the attitude toward questioning.
Click to expand...
Well lets rephrase the question:
Should drawing a house plan and inicating where to plant c4 be illegal?
(House is real and owned by someone, perhaps your house say)
If police found those drawings in somones posession what would they do?

How is it any different to being found in possession of child porn drawings?
 
Last edited:
James R said:
It turns out that merely seeing images of cigarettes or people smoking, or related paraphernalia (like a lighter, say), can trigger off a craving for a cigarette.
Click to expand...

I should note that the cigarettes I smoked did not burn up as quickly as other, market-dominating brands. Even when one of the brands introduced a variation intended to compete with the cigarettes I smoked, it still went faster. There are a number of reasons for this, but cigarettes are a finely-engineered scourge.

Americans had a free-speech fight about billboard advertising, and the underlying reason was actually demonstrable. If you smoked one of the common brands, the billboards along, say, the I-5 corridor where I live, were effective by saturation and, when that wasn't available, careful calculation. With the cigarettes I smoked, it didn't match up perfectly, but every once in a while I found myself buying something else because, well, it's an addiction, and the store I was at was out of my preferred grit, so I bought whatever for the fix, and it turns out the timing is nearly perfect: The billboards were placed so that driving at approximately the speed limit, you would see another billboard almost immediately after finishing a cigarette, and on the long stretches a billboard every three to five miles was enough to control smokers. I wasn't much for chain smoking, but it was possible back in the days when dapper cartoon characters lined the corridor between Seattle and Portland and then down to Salem ... and Eugene.

At the time it felt like an inevitable free speech standoff because we complained about endangering kids by using genital joke cartoon characters to pitch an addictive carcinogen; we also had to eventually do away with cigarette-based, branded trading currency. But, yeah, thinking back, it was pretty freaking crazy. From the Canadian border to the Mexican border, I-5 was lined with a perfectly and logically insane amount of cigarette advertising. And, sure, I guess that part was for the kids, but only after they were hooked.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Now hypothetically, say me and my husband of years were at a party and I got severely drunk and passed out. He didn't remove my clothing, but he got naked, humped my leg and got seminal fluid on a lousy pair of jeans.

That's grounds for a sexual assault charge, but it's more fun for me to taunt him about it, (i.e. I don't care) and say, hang it over his head if he is looking towards a seat on the supreme court. (The Kavanaugh thing I find disturbing aside.)
Click to expand...
Does it matter because you were wearing the jeans at the time? What if he had pulled them out of your dresser and molested your jeans?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Well lets rephrase the question:
Should drawing a house plan and inicating where to plant c4 be illegal?
(House is real and owned by someone, perhaps your house say)
If police found those drawings in somones posession what would they do?

How is it any different to being found in possession of child porn drawings?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. If it was a specific house, that would suggest intent. But what if it was a gingerbread house that was clearly fictional?

What about a drawing of you pointing a gun at me? Would that suggest intent? What about a drawing of you pointing a gun at Adolf Hitler or Sherlock Holmes?
 
Bowser said:
Does it matter because you were wearing the jeans at the time? What if he had pulled them out of your dresser and molested your jeans?
Click to expand...

The problem is this craven theme of molestation.

Priorities are as priorities will.
 
sideshowbob said:
That's a good question. If it was a specific house, that would suggest intent. But what if it was a gingerbread house that was clearly fictional?
Click to expand...
If the drawing was of a fictional child it would demonstrate intent to molest. ( any child) How many ginger bread houses are there in the world?
 
Yard%20sign


https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article219551530.html

:EDIT:

Stupid crappy mouse made posts too soon.


Anyway, the scenarios I made were to be with an air of innocuousness. Child pornography isn't and can be a promotion of harm to minors; it is contraband.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top