Posted here∞

Originally posted by Tuor:
Maybe this will lead to the decriminalization of images of kiddie porn. I hope so.

Instead of law enforcement wasting time and resouces on *images* of kiddie porn, why not use the time and resources on the *actual thing*?

IMO, any actual case of child molestation should be considered a captial crime with a mandatory death sentence. But images? Please. Law enforcement even wanted to go after *doctored* images. Can *anyone* tell me who is being harmed under such circumstance?


Thank you. So often, the mention of kiddie porn Internet message boards is treated like the cry of "OMG Terrar" in a Republican cabinet.

All you have to do is surf Usenet to see that there's a constant demand for such material.* We as a society have to construct a policy to deal with it, and however many brownie points repression gains with the neo-puritan crowd, it's clearly no more successful than the War on Drugs. On its face, pedophilia is no more deviant than, say, homosexuality (and nearly as common, no matter how much we try to shut that closet). Only the few who go on to molest kids are guilty of a true crime, just as those who commit (for example) prison rape should be the primary targets of the legal system. In fact, the latter case is a good illustration, since it's such a warped version of "homosexuality" that the term almost doesn't apply; one could (and probably should) draw a similar distinction between molestation and the literal Greek, "love of children."

I have no problem believing that Michael Jackson, for example, sincerely loves kids. I'd greatly prefer him as a babysitter to someone with a sexually violent history, whether or not his rape victims were over 18. I don't know what goes through his mind when he jerks off at night, but it's hardly my business.


*As an aside, even the way the law classifies kiddie porn itself is fucked up. Naked kids that can get you jailtime are generally asexual, and rarely exploitive -- they love to run around unclothed anyway -- but parents who force their semi-clothed girls into seductive poses and sell the pics to Webe can't be accused of a crime.

---

I don't think the strictness with which I define xxx-philia got across. Love, or even lust, is pretty distinct from the power dynamic and disregard for psychological damage that characterizes molestation. I'm expecting flames for "defending" paedophiles, but I believe the statistics are on my side: compare the popularity of porn consumed to the unfortunate incidents in RL. The latter is probably underreported, but the former is in far, far heavier demand than most people realize.

But back to the kiddie porn industry. No, it's not a victimless crime. So what's your suggestion? Reducing stateside production would be great -- the Ukranian orphanages would thank you for removing their competition. Sarcasm aside, that would be a great first step, if only because, while I've stated that mere nakedness shouldn't bother anyone, it's likely that taking nudie pictures isn't the only thing Daddy is encouraging his daughter to do. What else? I'll admit I don't have any grand solution, but focusing the majority of resources on sending people to FPMITA prison for having jpegs on their hard disk -- even CGI depictions, under some jurisdictions -- can't be a positive step. (Hopefully I don't think I need to play the "fantasy != reality" card in this community of GTA players, unless you think pornos really convince women to talk dirty while receiving facials.)

---

(continued here∞)


I'm inclined to agree, OIT, but the line isn't as clear as you make it. Think back a decade and a half: lots of little kids (1) like having pictures taken (makes them feel special) and (2) hate to wear clothes (just as a general principle). Some of these photos are ok -- "Junior running around the back yard looking adorable" -- and some, ostensibly, are not.

When does it become illegal? When they're distributed on the Net? So much for letting Grandma see her baby boys. When they're involved in sexy poses? Probably a fair enough threshold for truly pedophile porn, but for the hebephile variety you again find that most 13yo's, enjoying but uncertain of their budding development, want to be made to feel sexy.

For that matter, let's throw the issue of nakedness out the window; it's the silliest discriminant of all. The Ukranian sites I won't denigrate with a link* who pose 8yo's in alluring stage makeup are frankly sickening, clothes or no clothes. Don't ask. The 14yo's who frequent the Webe and NN circuits aren't as offensive, but for whatever reason won't attract the suspicion of the authorities despite the fact that the majority of provacative photos are being submitted by parents (hello, abuse?). Link to a spread-eagled 20yo, though, and you immediately raise the ire of the puritannical crowd, while even the liberals wonder in secret whether you've *gasp* shown attraction to someone who looks under 18.

*As usual we can't say much about their intentions: they could be using the money to fund the orphanage the kids come from, or funneling it to the Russian mob while letting the photographers have their way with the kids, we just don't know. All the more reason to keep these business in the limelight, open to scrutiny, instead of relegating them to the underworld where [surprise!] (1) the industry doesn't just cease (2) bad things can happen without anyone knowing.

---

(yet another thread∞)

Actually, that article warmed my heart. With all the stories you see (and repeated on Ars, etc.) about asshole cops, stupid victimless laws, and general disrespect for society, it's refreshing to see that at least some of our* criminal-justice talent is focusing their talent on reducing actual human suffering. I just hope that Gillespie's apparent passion for rescuing children in need instead of "omg illegal f1lesh4ring" is based on fact and not LA journalistic bias.

Also, the Captain EO poster gave a nice chuckle.

*broadly; I suppose those Canoodians can count for now

The word "always" in that sentence is a generalization even more unfounded than the mistake in the article...

Anyway, while mass-media exaggerations always suck (there it's justified!), I don't see why we should bristle at the notion that pedophiles may correlate with geeks. The association with Star Trek in particular does seem out of place, but the presence of Trek fandom in your psyche means wildly different things to different people. I have a feeling that for the pedo crowd, it's a "gateway drug" to geekiness in general: love of Trek-like technology -> AOL -> teen chatrooms is an obvious enough possibility, but there are myriad ways for that tree to branch into "dangerous" areas:
technology -> hardware -> spy gear -> voyeurism
technology -> discussion -> scifi/fantasy -> anime -> hentai
technology -> internet -> P2P -> private pedo exchanges
technology -> internet -> Usenet -> international sex trade

Didn't the evangelists of the 90s talk endlessly about how technology was a "universal enabler" for all people and interests? Why should we be even remotely surprised?

---

Amusing (if sad) footnote for anyone who doesn't believe my claims about the demand side of the equation: the #1 search engine keyphrase referring to richardberg.net is "kiddieporn," by an over 10:1 margin. This page, a text archive of a couple old forum posts, is the 3rd most popular entry point to my network of websites, right behind the root of avisynth.org & Warp's filter collection∞.

---

Back to CollectedWritings