Because by preventing (or slowing down) the depiction of children as available sexual partners, the odds of a potential pedophile acting on his urges is decreased.
You be the judge - sexual assault?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
- Status
Is it? Or might it provide an outlet that reduces his likelihood of offending?
I have heard that argument before; I don't buy it.
For rational people - yes, it might. For the people who can't control their urges - nope. If you get such people riled up they are more likely to act out their aggressions.
But some people are rational. Some people can control their urges and/or rechannel them. Why criminalize them?
That's the eternal question - how to balance the rights of the responsible people with the prevention of criminal activity.
And in this matter we've drawn the line at children. "Normal" pornography puts women (and some men, but far fewer) at risk; child pornography puts children at risk. As a society we've decided that the former is OK but the latter isn't. And we create laws accordingly.
I agree. Whether we approach from the perspective of legal theory, philosophy, psychology... there's a lot to consider. I just don't think that Sideshowbob is investing much in the way of argument. "It oughn't be a crime" or "no harm, no foul" really aren't sufficient for such a discussion.
Also, and not to go with the obvious (by which, of course, I intend to go with the obvious), but we're getting awfully close to the insanity of Robert Faurisson:
(from Pierre Vidal-Naquet's A Paper Eichmann, I think, but I'm quoting from Lyotard--and the French are notoriously shit with respect to proper citations)
and things always go badly when you get to that.
Sure, we're still a ways from that, but the suggestion that the inability to recall or to name damages somehow negates the crime inevitably spirals.
Edit: When I say "the French," I am referring to a particular sub-set, of course--many of whom aren't even French--so I did not intend to indict all French persons with that remark. My apologies if misunderstood.
Last edited:
The investment was in a question. It did finally provoke some discussion after a lot of knee- jerking.
I'm not really convinced that you actually believe what you are saying here, so I'm gonna pose another hypothetical:
A man wishes to rape a woman, but does not intend to do her any harm (somehow?!). So, he--without her knowledge, of course--provides her with a sufficient dosage of benzodiazepines, and... does so. Consequently, she has no recollection of the rape. So, no crime?
I added the condition simply because, if I hadn't, pretty much everyone would concede that such is a crime.
But, yeah, with that scenario it's nearly impossible to know that it will "never get back." But it's not hard to imagine situations where in one can all but guarantee that the victim(s) will never learn of the offense.
You quoted me. Is she apprehensive of imminent harm? I don't see how she could be so I don't see how it's an assualt. Of course, drugging somebody is a separate crime. Robbing a bank on the way home would also be a separate crime.
Non-consensual sex is more of a gray area. As somebody else said about the original example in this thread, between spouses there is an implied ongoing consent.
Agreed. And barbaric.
In Denmark, I believe that the law allows male circumcision of boys aged 12 and up, with consent. (voluntary, as you say - in a sense. As if 12-year-old kids made autonomous choices!)
That all depends. In the proper religious form, done by a rabbi of the old school, it's both painful and potentially harmful. Many Jewish men suffered long-term ill effects from infection and malformation of the penis from improper healing. The modern version, with anaesthetic, qualified surgeon and aseptic conditions, is far safer.
Still mutilation, when there is no therapeutic indication, just as nipple rings and scarification and tongue-slitting are mutilations.
It does, yes. But I don't think there was any intent or significance behind the choice of words.
Last edited:
So, do you think child pornography should be freely allowed on the internet? Like say, pornhub, have a category for 13 and under videos.
I'm all about the act of leg humping or streaking old folk.
Got it now
There is a point at which it is either deliberate or not, but the practical difference for other human beings is pretty much nil insofar as the danger one presents is, quite simply, the danger one presents.
Why would drugging someone be a crime--no harm, no recollection? Right? Try and be consistent, at least.
Bells
Staff member
Those children do not know anything happened either.
So why are you dodging the question?
I mean, your contention has been the requirement of threat for harm and knowledge by the victim. Dr. Bradley's victims were never threatened and had no knowledge of what he was doing to them. Many could feel it, but had no understanding as to why it was wrong or untoward. So if we were to use your logic in this thread, Dr. Bradley committed no crime.
Unless you now wish to change what you have argued in this thread and turn it into something else?
Ah, so now the change. They need to find out that anything happened. What of Dr. Bradley's victims who were babies and never find out? Has he committed no crime against them when he fondled their vaginas through their nappies/diapers?
What of paedophile priests who groom their victims and then molest and rape them. The children are unaware that anything bad is happening. No crime, right? What of paedophiles who sneak photos of children in various stages of undress in a school changing room and trades it with other paedophiles to determine which child should be kidnapped for them to rape? The child is unaware, of course, until he or she is kidnapped. When do you think the crime actually occurs? Do you ignore the taking photos with intent to pick the victim and then plan the kidnapping and just focus on the kidnapping and rape? What if the child is drugged and unaware of the harm caused to them? I take it the kidnapping and possibly the rape is out of the question as well then, right, since your reasoning is that the victim has to feel or know of the threat for there to be harm. If a paedophile teacher drugs and rapes a child while that child is at school, and the child remains unaware, your reasoning or logic (or lack there of) would entail no crime has been committed. Because the child did not feel threatened and the child in unaware of what happened to them.
The only reason the perpetrator's actions were known in case A is because others spoke out. The victims were completely unaware.
Which brings me to the next question.
You argued that there needs to be threat or the victim needs to feel threatened for there to be harm. In Case A, the victims were not threatened, did not feel threatened and were unaware. So how can the doctors listed in Case A have committed a crime?
Try not dodging and actually answering in regards to the arguments you have made in this thread. In other words, try to be consistent.
And yet, you tried to dismiss it earlier when you said the victim "doesn't know anything happened" and demanded I try a different example...?
I think it is disturbing that we are now arguing whether raping and molesting children is really a crime if the victim does not know it actually happened and the victim was somehow not harmed by it because the victim did not feel threatened beforehand....
Are you for real?
Is this a troll? Are you posting this shit just to get a rise out of people?
Or do you actually believe what you are saying and why?
I want you to consider who in society makes such arguments and I want you to consider why they would be wrong.
To the one, it is our role to protect those who cannot protect or defend themselves. To suggest that the "real harm" is caused when the victims are informed of what happened to them is obscene. To the other, you completely ignore the actual crime committed against the victim by the perpetrator and the harm they ultimately cause. To blame others for informing the victim instead of the actual perpetrator who caused the actual harm..
I'll ask again, are you for real?
To suggest that raping a patient in a coma, for example, would not really be a crime because the victim did not feel threatened and was unaware of the assault... Because that is essentially what you have argued throughout this thread. It can be applied to a variety of criminal acts, such as raping a woman who is in a coma. Or a doctor sexually molesting a newborn baby who is unaware of any crime being committed against them.. To actually suggest or question if the "real harm" is caused to them by people telling them they are victims.. Why are you absolving the perpetrator of the crime he or she committed by placing the blame and "real harm caused" on those protecting the victim and future victims from the perpetrator?
Oh I'm sorry, you weren't the one who posted this?
Was this sideshowdave, your alternate personality, who wrote that?
Oh sweet Jesus..
I don't know sideshowbob.. What do you think is beneficial in portraying children as sexual objects or sexual beings to adults? What dangers can come from portraying children as sexual objects to paedophiles, I wonder? What can possibly go wrong with normalising the sexualisation of children to paedophiles....?
No no, please tell us how you really feel..
I'll be honest. The last time we had this particular discussion was with a paedophile named ScottX. Stryder banned him, permanently and I reported him to the police for some of the links he posted on this website due to nature of the photos, because the objects of those photos were children, to protect this website, the links were to paedophile online websites and because I am obligated by law to report, and not long after, Stryder being the internet whizz that he is, discovered ScottX was more than likely caught up in a paedophile ring that was tracked by police internationally online. ScottX was a school teacher to boot, by the way.
So I really do not think that you should be singing praises for raising or 'provoking some discussion'.
There are inherent dangers to what you have argued for in this thread, sideshowbob and I should not have to remind you of that. You are an intelligent man. I would never, ever, have pegged you for someone who would argue this:
*Sigh*
Why would drugging her be a crime? After all, by your logic, if she is unaware of it, is it really a crime?
What I find most troubling here is not so much the inconsistency in his logic--frankly, that was to be expected--but, rather, where he does consistently apply his logic. He slips up on the drugging part, and on another tangential aspect in a post some pages back, but with respect to matters of rape, sexual assault, molestation, he's keen to point out that if there is no perceived or recollected harm or threat, then there is no crime.
Bells
Staff member
Bells
Staff member
No, it is not.
Most people recognise that if a woman does not consent, then it is rape. And if a woman is unconscious, she is unable to consent, and it is therefore rape.
I do not understand why this is a gray area for you...
This reminds me of something...
Ah yes, Sir Matthew Hale:
"For the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."
From the 17th century.
Just so you are aware, and in case you are married or in a relationship of any kind.. If a man or woman rapes his or her wife, partner, or same sex partner while she or he is unconscious, it is still rape. It is still a crime.
Consent is not implied. Implied consent is actually a myth. Something Australia recognised decades ago.
Perhaps you live in a country or community that still views women as chattels? Do you?
- Status