Christine O'Donnell would define masturbation to other women as adultery.

You haven't? I heard that line of defense of pornography used a bunch of times.

First of all, what is simulated child porn? How does one simulate it? Use of 3d graphics or something? Dolls?

Secondly, I am no advocate of banning "sin" things, but don't you think that simulated child porn could be a "gateway drug"? Meaning, I have a fear that watching any kind of child porn, simulated or not, becomes acceptable then there's a good chance that even people that weren't on the road to pedophilia experience it and like it and that's not good.

I'll pretty much allow anything between consenting adults or that involves consenting adults, but with probability that I will be a father someday, anything involving children and sex together is a non-starter. It doesn't enter in my realm of acceptable conversation.

First of all, what is simulated child porn? How does one simulate it? Use of 3d graphics or something? Dolls?

Actually, yes, 3D graphics, or just good artwork - Wikipedia has an article, naturally.

Secondly, I am no advocate of banning "sin" things, but don't you think that simulated child porn could be a "gateway drug"?

It's irrelevant to the question - by that same logic, a government could ban fictional accounts of terrorism, protest, revolution, etc. - because couldn't reading about it "be a gateway drug"?  Where do you draw the lawn?  More importantly, do you trust the government to be drawing the right line?

with probability that I will be a father someday, anything involving children and sex together is a non-starter. It doesn't enter in my realm of acceptable conversation.

Nobody's forcing you to read / view this stuff.

Allons-y!

More importantly, do you trust the government to be drawing the right line?

I always love the right-wing slippery slope arguments, they almost always come from a silly place.

Yes, I trust the government to draw the right line, as I am already trusting the government to draw that line and it suits me just fine. I really have no sympathy at all for pedophiles, regardless of where their 'condition' comes from.

And I see there's this underlining comparison being made in this thead, that homosexual or "not-normal sexual behavior" is akin in to pedophilia. Nope. It's not.

Nobody's forcing you to read / view this stuff.

No, nobody isn't. But it's surprising and informative to see those that have or want children advocating simulated child pornography. Desirous indeed.

I always love the right-wing slippery slope arguments

LOLWUT  Right-wing, really?  I challenge you to find any actual right-winger who things simulated child porn should be legal.  Heck, hardly anyone is willing to stand up for it, but those who do tend to be ACLU-types, which generally come out of the left-wing's civil liberty crowd, or from straight up hardcore libertarians.  You can distrust the increasing expansion of the government's increasing range of discretionary police powers without being "right wing" (or was Occupy Wall Street "right wing" in your eyes?)

But it's surprising and informative to see those that have or want children advocating simulated child pornography. Desirous indeed.

Let me guess - you think that people who think abortion should be legal also "advocate abortion," right?

But it's surprising and informative to see those that have or want children advocating simulated child pornography. Desirous indeed.

Oh yeah, there's the ticket, accuse people who support civil liberties of being closet pedophiles - way to take a page from Joe - do you have a list, too?

Allons-y!

LOLWUT  Right-wing, really?

I said in reference to slippery slope arguments, not simulated child porn. Read before you post.

You can distrust the increasing expansion of the government's increasing range of discretionary police powers without being "right wing" (or was Occupy Wall Street "right wing" in your eyes?)

WTF do police powers have to do with allowing simulated child porn?

Let me guess - you think that people who think abortion should be legal also "advocate abortion," right?

WTF do planned families and women's rights have to do with simulated child porn?

Oh yeah, there's the ticket, accuse people who support civil liberties of being closet pedophiles - way to take a page from Joe - do you have a list, too?

I didn't accuse anyone of being closet pedophiles. But maybe you got a guilty conscience?

What I was saying is that its surprising and informative that present parents or future parents would advocated  for simulated child porn, on a belief that would reduce child sex crimes noless. I just find that inconceivable.

Sidenote:

There should a lot of dead guys out, lots of dead priests. America has become soft on this. We allow these things to happen, we cover up for them as with Penn State, we give silly sentences for those crimes, we've almost condoned them by indifference. Now we're talking about literally providing entertainment to these sick fucks because we somehow believe that will reduce their crimes. It's joke. These people should not receive an ounce of sympathy or tolerance. They should be castrated for thinking about it (IE perverted justice) or outright executed.

I said in reference to slippery slope arguments, not simulated child porn. Read before you post.

You said it in reference to a slippery slope argument about simulated child porn - a slippery slope argument that left-wingers make, right-wingers do not.  My point stands.

WTF do police powers have to do with allowing simulated child porn?

Giving the police the power to prosecute people for victimless crimes (i.e. "vice crimes" of all sorts - drug use, adult prostitution, gambling, pornography, and yes, simulated child porn) creates an atmosphere where the police aren't just there to protect people from each other, but to protect people from themselves.  It normalizes the notion that the government should be allowed in all parts of our private lives, because the government knows best and citizens can't be trusted to make their own decisions about what is and is not harmful to them.  This creates an environment in which privacy rights become increasingly eroded because people like you can't see past "those sick fucks who don't deserve any protection" and forget about all the people who end up being prosecuted for child abuse who are actually innocent (see, for example, the moral panic over "Satanic ritual abuse" that occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s).  You think you have nothing to worry about because you've never done anything wrong, but you ignore the fact that the police routinely make horrific mistakes.  Making more and more behaviors (particularly the aforementioned victimless crimes) criminal takes us to a point where almost anyone can be arrested for something if the police want to find a reason to arrest them.  I don't want people to look at simulated child pornography any more than I want a woman to have, say, a third trimester abortion just because she changed her mind about having a kid (that is the point I was trying to make by bringing that up, sorry if it was not clear), but I think that both are the sort of touchy legal areas that need to be defended by people who are interested in preserving civil liberties.

What I was saying is that its surprising and informative that present parents or future parents would advocated  for simulated child porn, on a belief that would reduce child sex crimes noless. I just find that inconceivable.

Thank you for clarifying that, but your original comment definitely came across as an implication that people who defend simulated child porn are all closet pedophiles, even if that isn't what you meant.

we give silly sentences for those crimes

I really don't know what you mean by this. Convicted pedophiles almost invariably spend decades in prison, if not life in prison, particularly if it's a high profile case like Sandusky.  Convicted pedophiles are usually almost unemployable once they get out of jail and often can't find any place to live because they're not allowed to live within so many feet of a church, day care, or a school in most states (and in most towns and cities, it's almost impossible to find housing that doesn't violate one of those rules).  Other than actually killing them wholesale (do you really advocate that?  if so, have you read the links about police fuck-ups and moral panics about sex abuse that I posted above? you sure you're cool with the idea of doling out punishments that can't be taken back if a mistake was made?), how much more harshly can we actually punish these folks?

Allons-y!

Giving the police the power to prosecute people for victimless crimes (i.e. "vice crimes" of all sorts - drug use, adult prostitution, gambling, pornography, and yes, simulated child porn) creates an atmosphere where the police aren't just there to protect people from each other, but to protect people from themselves.

Now you find something wrong with that? Because the conversations you used to have with ThePlague seemed like you were on the side of people needing protection from themselves... ALSO protection from their parents and other family members and such. These are not "victimless" crimes, if you drug or gambling problem causes your 3 year old to starve, I don't find that to be a victimless crime.

...people like you can't see past "those sick fucks who don't deserve any protection" and forget about all the people who end up being prosecuted for child abuse who are actually innocent...

How many people are prosecuted for child abuse who are actually innocent? Outside of these media-hyped weird cases (really Satanic cults...) Outside of some 19 year old getting statutory rape for kissing a 15 year old, how many people labeled sex offenders are actually innocent?

I don't want people to look at simulated child pornography any more than I want a woman to have, say, a third trimester abortion just because she changed her mind about having a kid (that is the point I was trying to make by bringing that up, sorry if it was not clear), but I think that both are the sort of touchy legal areas that need to be defended by people who are interested in preserving civil liberties.

They are not remotely comparable. One is non-consensual and an invasion and the other is choice by a woman about her own body.

Thank you for clarifying that, but your original comment definitely came across as an implication that people who defend simulated child porn are all closet pedophiles, even if that isn't what you meant.

Did ZYX's modding of Joshv's comment have the same implication?

...how much more harshly can we actually punish these folks?

We can go further. Like I said, castration is a nice option.

Because the conversations you used to have with ThePlague seemed like you were on the side of people needing protection from themselves

I'm not a black and white kind of guy - the real world is a messy place and my opinions about politics and society are likewise messy.  I think that the government needs to provide people with a safety net of basic goods and services - food, housing, healthcare - but otherwise I don't favor the government telling people how to live their lives.  I'm opposed to things like Bloomberg's large soda ban, for example (even though I personally rarely drink soda, because I think it's disgustingly sweet and bad for my health - does that further confuse your opinion of me?).  I do think that the government should be active in regulating banks and the financial industry, because there's a case where you're protecting people from each other (i.e. protecting people from the large banks, who have an asymmetric information advantage, from taking advantage of small investors or borrowers, etc., who wouldn't be investing in those firms or taking out those loans if they had full information about the risks involved).

These are not "victimless" crimes, if you drug or gambling problem causes your 3 year old to starve, I don't find that to be a victimless crime.

The crime is letting your 3 year old starve, it's not your drug or gambling problem.  Lots of alcoholics completely fuck up their families lives - do you think we should therefor make alcohol illegal?  Tried that already, didn't work too well.  On the flip side, lots of people who don't commit vice crimes are just lousy parents who waste their day away watching daytime television or doing equally useless things.  The problem with any of these activities isn't inherent to the activity itself (plenty of people drink alcohol, watch daytime TV, smoke the occasional joint, etc. without neglecting their families).  People who are prone to being bad parents and bad people tend to be drawn towards these activities, but they'd likely be bad parents and bad people whether they were doing this stuff or not.  Making it illegal isn't going to suddenly make them good people - if you were going to do drugs and let your kid starve, you'll probably just find something else to do while you let your kid starve, if drugs aren't available anymore.

How many people are prosecuted for child abuse who are actually innocent? Outside of these media-hyped weird cases (really Satanic cults...) Outside of some 19 year old getting statutory rape for kissing a 15 year old, how many people labeled sex offenders are actually innocent?

Umm...so we've already established that there are quite a few cases where people have been falsely convicted (which you just admitted) - so why is the burden on me to give you even MORE cases?  Isn't the fact that it's happened already, multiple times, more than troublesome enough to you?  If not, why not?  you're a minority, right? (Indian?)  You are aware of the unfortunate history in the US of murdering minorities who were falsely accused of sexual assault as a way of maintaining white racial dominance, aren't you?  Do you really want to go back to fostering the sort of hysterical atmosphere about sex crimes where that kind of shit is more likely to happen again?

One is non-consensual and an invasion

Who is being non-consensually invaded by simulated child pornography?  If it's all computer generated, no child is harmed.  For that matter, articulate to me the difference between simulated child porn and Nabokov's Lolita - why should one be legal and the other not?  Let me be very clear about this - I don't think that actual child porn should ever be legal, and I think that anyone who physically abuses children should be put in jail for a very long period of time.

We can go further. Like I said, castration is a nice option.

Again - irreversible if you fuck up and wrongly convict someone.

Allons-y!

"You are aware of the unfortunate history in the US of murdering minorities who were falsely accused of sexual assault as a way of maintaining white racial dominance, aren't you?"

Falsely? I know you're aware of the fact that niggers are rape prone, because I've told you.

You should try reading Lolita. There are no pornographic sex scenes in it.

I'm not a black and white kind of guy...

So don't talk about things in a black and white way. You immediate went to police state and government interference blah blah blah. Nothing gray about that. You make it seem like you don't trust the government all when you're talking to me and when you're talking to others it's like the government is your best friend, well I guess as long as it's giving away other people's money.

Making it illegal isn't going to suddenly make them good people...

And legalizing something won't make people responsible with it either.

I am not advocating banning alcohol or drugs. Actually my position on illegal drugs is that most, if not all, should be legalized and taxed. I am quite the libertarian on that, but I think it's incredibly stupid to think that legalizing "simulated" child porn is going to allow these sick fucks to get their jollies off and then that'll be it. Instead - to use a slippery slope argument - slowly but surely allowing simulated child porn will stigmatize child porn less and less to the point where sex with children will "seem" acceptable or at least perceived acceptable by enough pedophiles. Let's keep it unacceptable by banning every damn variation of it, simulated or not.

By the way, CGI is getting pretty damn good. How are you going to be able to tell the difference between simulated stuff and the real stuff?

so we've already established that there are quite a few cases where people have been falsely convicted...

Under less protections noless. I am sure it's not as easy as anymore to falsely convict something in open court.

You are aware of the unfortunate history in the US of murdering minorities who were falsely accused of sexual assault as a way of maintaining white racial dominance, aren't you?

That shit happened years ago, you're not seriously applying it now? Anyways, that's a due process, equal protection issue. Anyone accused of sexual assault should get due process. I have a problem with what happens afterwards, and then I problem with sympathizing with them.

Do you really want to go back to fostering the sort of hysterical atmosphere about sex crimes where that kind of shit is more likely to happen again?

I don't believe that'll happen.

You have jerked off while reading Lolita?

Again - irreversible if you fuck up and wrongly convict someone.

Sexual abuse of a child or anyone for that matter is irreversible.

Fear of wrongful convict is blown out of proportion.

Fear of wrongful convict is blown out of proportion.

Do some reading here and get back to me on that.

Allons-y!

I meant in cases of sexual abuse of children, fears of wrong conviction are blown out of proportion, but seen.

I've seen that before btw, and most (I mean I think like 5 are not related to DNA) of cases are related to DNA testing being able now. Wrongful conviction in murder/homicide cases should be much lower now vs most of the cases on that link which are from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

fears of wrong conviction are blown out of proportion

Really?  Isn't that why few men are willing to be primary or secondary school teachers anymore?  Doesn't that indicate a real fear of wrong conviction in a way which significantly influences society?

Actually, I've never really understood the rationale for the crime of child pornography possession.  I mean, people film themselves doing crimes all the time, and then we just laugh at them, "Ha, ha, ha what an idiot, he actually filmed himself doing it!"  If you happen to have a film of a real crime, vandalism, rape, murder, whatever, no big deal.  Nobody cares.  Just so long as it isn't child pornography, because then you're going to prison for a long, long time.  Murder is fine, though, no problem.  I don't really get it.

In most jurisdictions, two slightly underage kids can have sex with no legal problems.  Just so long as they don't film themselves doing it, in which case it suddenly becomes a major federal case, and they can spend the rest of their lives as convicted sex offenders living under bridges.  Again, I don't really get the rationale.

You have all these sex offender registries, but they don't differentiate between, "propositioned someone slightly underage while drunk," and, "raped a 4-year old until her tailbone was broken and healed in a weird alignment, resulting in permanent pain when sitting even as an adult."  Yes, I know someone the latter happened to.  The net result is nobody pays attention to the sex offender registries because there are too many people on them.

This whole idea that legally underage kids can't consent is bullshit too.  I mean, think about the typical middle aged housewife having sex with a teenaged boy.  Should that really be treated almost the same underaged rape, the way it usually is in our legal system?  Ok, I'm fine with sex with underage kids being a crime, but really consensual sex is a much lesser crime.  It's not close to the same thing.  On the other hand, the rule with adults that someone has to actively object for sex to not be consensual just isn't close to working with kids.

If someone is really guilty of raping kids, they need to go away forever.  You don't need even minimum security prison security, but they need to go to some kind of ultra-minimum security prison where they don't have the chance to do it again and never come back.

About first and second degree murder, I don't really understand why the distinction ought to matter.  I mean, if some guy blows the head off another motorist because he got cut off in traffic, and that's second degree murder, because he was just mad a the time, so he isn't really a bad guy.  On the other hand, if someone thinks about the guy who raped his kid and then kills them, that's first degree murder.  Obviously they're completely incorrigible if they're going to kill someone after thinking about it.

I mean, WTF?  If someone is going to try to kill me, I'd hope they'd think about it first, and make a real decision that I deserved it.  That would seem to me to be the lesser crime, compared to killing someone without even thinking about it.

Really?  Isn't that why few men are willing to be primary or secondary school teachers anymore?  Doesn't that indicate a real fear of wrong conviction in a way which significantly influences society?

I'm sure there's a variety of reasons why men are less likely to be school teachers. I would actually agree that perceived false conviction probably is one of those reasons. But that is a product of media hype concerning predatory behavior, not actual convictions. The media drives the fear of the white van parked on every corner waiting to snatch up your kids.

Actually, I've never really understood the rationale for the crime of child pornography possession.  I mean, people film themselves doing crimes all the time, and then we just laugh at them, "Ha, ha, ha what an idiot, he actually filmed himself doing it!"  If you happen to have a film of a real crime, vandalism, rape, murder, whatever, no big deal.  Nobody cares.  Just so long as it isn't child pornography, because then you're going to prison for a long, long time.  Murder is fine, though, no problem.  I don't really get it.

There's possession of child pornography and there is production of child pornography. Since child pornography is hard to obtain (we should hope so) it seems that production and possession are perceived to be very close to each other. (Seems a bit like drugs uh, you don't need much for it to be 'distribution'.) Similarly, the perception of pedophiliac thoughts vs pedophiliac acts is that they are very much the same. I know they are not, I'm sure there are examples of pedophiles that haven't committed a pedophiliac act, but that doesn't (shouldn't reassure) anymore. It seems like a " just a matter of time" or "right place, right time" sort of thing.

Well I disagree there is indifference to "real crime" (as if child pornography isn't a real crime?) like vandalism, rape, or murder, there's a qualitative difference in that child pornography almost certainly (outside of CGI I guess) needs a a child to be produced. So a rape of a child has happen to make the child pornography, thus the perception of course is that it is more horrific.

By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "[society perceives] murder is fine"? I certainly can't film or photograph myself committing a murder (or for that matter someone else doing it) and people thinking that is fine. Or are you saying that having pictures (or any media) related to murder or rape is fine?

In most jurisdictions, two slightly underage kids can have sex with no legal problems.  Just so long as they don't film themselves doing it, in which case it suddenly becomes a major federal case, and they can spend the rest of their lives as convicted sex offenders living under bridges.  Again, I don't really get the rationale.

I don't either in that regard. But we're not talking about pedophilia anymore.

You have all these sex offender registries, but they don't differentiate between, "propositioned someone slightly underage while drunk," and, "raped a 4-year old until her tailbone was broken and healed in a weird alignment, resulting in permanent pain when sitting even as an adult."  Yes, I know someone the latter happened to.  The net result is nobody pays attention to the sex offender registries because there are too many people on them.

I agree with you that sex offender registries need reform. But I found something conflicting/contradictory in this post. Above, you talk about gray areas and where differentiation should be made, but you don't like those differentiations when it concerns murder (IE first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc.). I found that odd.

This whole idea that legally underage kids can't consent is bullshit too.  I mean, think about the typical middle aged housewife having sex with a teenaged boy.  Should that really be treated almost the same underaged rape, the way it usually is in our legal system?  Ok, I'm fine with sex with underage kids being a crime, but really consensual sex is a much lesser crime.  It's not close to the same thing.  On the other hand, the rule with adults that someone has to actively object for sex to not be consensual just isn't close to working with kids.

Consensual sex with an underage kid is statutory rape, it's not treated like pedophilia (at least not that I know of).

On that note: I think that women should be treated just like men (I know port doesn't think so) in regards to sex with teenage kids. And that courts have shown that. It's nonsense to say that a teenage boy having sex with his teacher is a good time, while a teenage girl having sex with her teacher is nonconsenual rape.

If someone is really guilty of raping kids, they need to go away forever.  You don't need even minimum security prison security, but they need to go to some kind of ultra-minimum security prison where they don't have the chance to do it again and never come back.

Can't agree, I like that it they are in prisons where other inmates have access to them.

That would seem to me to be the lesser crime, compared to killing someone without even thinking about it.

Cold, calculated, methodological murder is a lesser crime than murder through impulse? Eh I don't know about that.

There's possession of child pornography and there is production of child pornography. Since child pornography is hard to obtain (we should hope so) it seems that production and possession are perceived to be very close to each other. (Seems a bit like drugs uh, you don't need much for it to be 'distribution'.) Similarly, the perception of pedophiliac thoughts vs pedophiliac acts is that they are very much the same. I know they are not, I'm sure there are examples of pedophiles that haven't committed a pedophiliac act, but that doesn't (shouldn't reassure) anymore. It seems like a " just a matter of time" or "right place, right time" sort of thing.

Well I disagree there is indifference to "real crime" (as if child pornography isn't a real crime?) like vandalism, rape, or murder, there's a qualitative difference in that child pornography almost certainly (outside of CGI I guess) needs a a child to be produced. So a rape of a child has happen to make the child pornography, thus the perception of course is that it is more horrific.

By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "[society perceives] murder is fine"? I certainly can't film or photograph myself committing a murder (or for that matter someone else doing it) and people thinking that is fine. Or are you saying that having pictures (or any media) related to murder or rape is fine?

Yes, I was speaking about the issue of possession only.  Obviously the production of said videos (outside of CGI, drawings, etc.) should be a serious crime.

We can certainly imagine a society where possession of videos of violence, even faked violence like Hollywood films is treated like child pornography is today.  In such a society, possession of such videos despite the extreme consequences of having them would indicate a significant predilection towards enjoyment of violence, and it might be argued that this justified the law against possession of such things.

Anyhow, I'm not sure it would cause a large change in actual abuse rates, but I would definitely see it as being a good thing if the most accessible child for anyone interested in such a thing was made up of bits, because I don't much mind bits getting hurt.

Above, you talk about gray areas and where differentiation should be made, but you don't like those differentiations when it concerns murder (IE first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc.). I found that odd.

I'm perfectly fine with differentiations being made with murder as well, I just don't find the one we make between first and second degree murder to be relevant for sentencing, in either direction really.  Yes, I really do lean very slightly towards second degree murder being worse than first degree, in that at least in first degree murder they've given themselves a chance to cool down.  Maybe I'm just a vengeful person, if something makes me really mad, waiting a bit isn't likely to cool me down significantly.  People say that if someone has a small time to think about them, their decisions are made "in cold blood" but I really don't see that that makes any significant difference.  Validity of motive, age, and the likelihood that someone's conduct would actually lead to someone dying all seem to me to be more important mitigating factors regarding sentencing than whether there was any time for thought.

To give some examples, there was a recent case where a guy told his 16-yo girlfriend, "I'm going to kill her," regarding his ex., and she figured he was just mouthing off like people do all the time.  Then he asked where she was so he could go talk to her, and she told him.  Well, it turned out he actually went and killed her.  He turned state's evidence and she ended up getting sentenced to more time for the murder than he did.

Another example I've seen is some friends agree to go shoplift together.  They pull in to a convenience store, and start pulling items, then get noticed.  One of them pulls a gun that nobody else knew he had and kills the clerk.  They all get convicted of murder (or accessory to, same thing), but the actual shooter turns state's evidence and gets the least time of any of them.

Our criminal justice system is nuts.

There should a lot of dead guys out,

What word is missing there?

America has become soft on this . . . we give silly sentences for those crimes, we've almost condoned them by indifference.

Oh, puh-lease.  Pretty much the worst thing you could be accused of in the US is child molestation.  Not only does society in general look on you as worse than a murderer, when you go to prison the other prisoners-- murderers and rapists included-- are going to look on you as subhuman trash.

we cover up for them as with Penn State

Things that people are indifferent to generally don't get covered up.

They should be castrated for thinking about it (IE perverted justice) or outright executed.

Since that's the prevailing opinion-- all while declining to discuss Gaius Petronius's "orientation" question-- how do you see America as "soft" on this topic?

I didn't accuse anyone of being closet pedophiles. But maybe you got a guilty conscience?

So, what information do you feel was gathered by the positions you labeled as "informative"?

Since that's the prevailing opinion-- all while declining to discuss Gaius Petronius's "orientation" question-- how do you see America as "soft" on this topic?

The orientation question is BS. So we are going to have the orientation of being a psychopath?

South Park did a show on this a while back called "Cartman Joins NAMBLA" it just shows how silly people get when they try to "logically" consistent (really, it's being over-pc) and come up with things like orientation for pedophiles.

So, what information do you feel was gathered by the positions you labeled as "informative"?

The information that people such as those exist in the first place. That in itself is inconceivable to me.

It's not BS if it turns out there are people who are pedophiles but don't act on it.  Those folks certainly shouldn't be castrated for "even thinking about it" any more than I should be castrated as a rapist for being sexually attracted to a woman-- i.e. "thinking about it"-- who I know wouldn't consent to sex with me.

You know people like that?

How would I know if I did?

Has anyone ever openly come up to you and said, "oh hey I like thinking about having sex with children but never have." If you haven't, let me ask you: how would you react to that?

I know I would be going to jail.

And after reading the Gawker piece, it makes me LESS sympathic. I know the only advice I would give to Terry, "here's a loaded gun with one bullet, the do the most useful thing you can do with it, blow your fuckin' brains out."

No, they haven't.  See my comment about society's reaction to pedophilia.  Nobody is going to trumpet that predilection, especially not to some layman friend/casual acquaintance/co-worker like me.

My initial response would be bafflement that they were telling me.  If I believed it wasn't some sick joke, my later response would be that they needed help and should stay away from kids.

And I see there's this underlining comparison being made in this thead, that homosexual or "not-normal sexual behavior" is akin in to pedophilia. Nope. It's not

Yup. It is.

It's not, one is consensual and the other is not.

Oh, I see. You are conflating pedophilia with child rape.

So there's slutty children whores who willingly agree to have sex with an adult?

You're missing the whole point of Gaius Petronius's writeup: there is evidence that there are people who are pedophiles who don't act on it.

Fuck'em. I can't and won't sympathize with them.

If there are pedophiles who control their urges, might that not give us clues as to how to prevent others from acting on their urges?

You don't have to sympathize with them to think there could be some social benefit in recognizing and studying them.

I don't think so. If there is an "orientation" to it, then maybe there could be a medical drug treatment, but the only medical treatment I can see is castration. That's prevention. Other prevention is making it a death sentence (involuntary or bad enough to be voluntary.)

I still can't understand how Terry from the Gawker story raped a 7 year old and is now a 38, small-business owner, and deeply religious? He should be dead. That's it.

Well, it seems that my WU brought us around to debating the validity of consensual sex with 8-year-olds, which is the gold star reductio ad absurdum. The real point is to explore how reconfiguring the conceptual framework can set a myriad of dominoes falling. Is it possible to deal rationally with such crimes? Making people live under a bridge doesn't strike me as a rational punishment. The Satanic panic of the 80s was almost assuredly complete nonsense. On the other hand, does reconfiguring pedophilia into a an orientation instead of a disorder meet the goals of either acting compassionately to a troubled individual or protecting innocent children? Damned if I know.

In 1962 the JAMA published a remarkable paper introducing a new disorder, "Battered Child Syndrome". Up to that point doctors had been seeing children who had been beaten and horribly abused, but they believed the parent's lame stories about the kid falling off his trike and breaking both arms. I remember seeing this come into the news at the time, and can now see that nobody believed child abuse was anywhere near as prevalent as we now believe. It is difficult to describe how people's attitudes changed. The addition of sexual abuse came later.  Now people are being asked to make a conceptual change that may or may not adjust many people's attitudes. Or perhaps we've finally reached a bridge too far.

When an adult has sex with a child, it is rape.

Over eggs and toast in the morning: "I'm feeling a little gay today dear, give me the blue pill - might be an interesting day if you took one too".

There is a treatment. It's called self fucking control. You fuck who you want to fuck. So tired of the deterministic bullshit about sexuality.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!