Pedophilia

[generalnmx]

to quote it: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

That'll never happen on these boards! :rolleyes:


You know, the Internet is wonderful for allowing us to talk freely about these sort of things. I would never, ever go into a restaurant, even one not-so-crowded, and start off a conversation about pedophilia / paedophilia. In fact, I could easily start off a conversation about Satanist, or even threatening to blow up the President (watch the Internet scanners find this thread!) and feel no regrets, but pedophilia? I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole...even on the Internet. Which is why I'm not going to get into this discussion, at least not when I am currently on vacation.

By the way, I predict this will promote LESS flames then the religion thread because everyone is going to stay the hell away from this. Yet if ONE person says something a little too "for pedophilia", GP32x will be burned to the ground, even with our outrage at the media taking it out of proportion

 

[Rico]

Pussy.

 

[Memnoch]

Pussy.

I hope that pussy is aged 16+ :blink:

 

[Mark]

Pussy.

I hope that pussy is aged 16+ :blink:

Yup, else it would be beastility and paedophilia. And the Religious Right will be hella pissed, oh yes.

 

[Kop_007]

16 year old child molester , currently employed at the local burger king. I also dabble in Flash media.

Thats sick, not even some thing to joke about.

It was a joke.

Maybe in poor taste, but I know I lauged out loud when I read it, just all these serious replies:

Student
Artist
Burger Flipper
Child Molester.

That's a sense of humour.

No need for the nanny police to call him sick.

I'm going to kill you for calling him sick - murder, not something to joke about, sick?

No, Just a joke.

By the way, Paedophilia is sick and disgusting. But this was just joke.

 

[Rico]

We KNOW it was a joke. Point was it provoked a discussion, so I split it off, and I think the discussion should be allowed to continue (provided everyone hasn't gotten bored of it) whether it was started by a joke or not.

 

[johncross85]

A quick read through this thread and I was pleased to find that pretty much everyone has a balanced and well thought out view on a serious topic! Given the way that the media has treated the subject in the last couple of years I was beginning to wonder whether I was the only sane one left...

I know that finding a scapegoat is a very easy thing to do and something that one should avoid, but on the subject of paedophilia the media have a hell of a lot to answer for - particularily the red-top press. Two examples that sum it up well:

1) A red-top tabloid runs a hate campaign against paedophiles and whips one small town up into such a frenzy that a local paediatrician is beaten to within an inch of his life.

2) Some years ago (maybe 10), one of the red-tops that now use headlines along the lines of 'Sicko Perv' when reporting child abuse, introduced a new Page 3 (topless) model. The twist was that she was only 15 and it would be illegal to have her on Page 3. Each day, they counted down to her birthday doing increasingly more revealing photographs until, on her 16th birthday, they showed her topless. Talk about giving your readership mixed messages...

J(ohn)

 

[LHC]

The twist was that she was only 15 and it would be illegal to have her on Page 3. Each day, they counted down to her birthday doing increasingly more revealing photographs until, on her 16th birthday, they showed her topless.

Sounds superb, I wish I saw it.

 

[Mark]

Let's be honest; that's nothing but exploitation. That shouldn't be happening.

 

[LHC]

If she posed for a countdown series of photos of her own free will I don't see who has been exploited or why it shouldn't be happening.

I've never seen the girl in question, but the chances are if she was a page 3 girl, I'd pork her and wouldn't have felt bad about having considered it while she was 15 too.

 

[thebluenewt]

This was in the 80s, those were different times...

 

[Mark]

If she posed for a countdown series of photos of her own free will I don't see who has been exploited or why it shouldn't be happening.

I've never seen the girl in question, but the chances are if she was a page 3 girl, I'd pork her and wouldn't have felt bad about having considered it while she was 15 too.

If she really wanted to do it, then fine, but she could of been bullied into it-when she started on the countdown, she could of wished to withdraw but didn't feel like she could.

 

[LHC]

That happens to people every day though; deciding to do something and later regretting it is hardly proof of childhood exploitation.

 

[Mark]

That happens to people every day though; deciding to do something and later regretting it is hardly proof of childhood exploitation.

I still believe it to be. It's not just that, there's just something about a child getting her tits out on the first day she can legally that's unsettling and shouldn't be promoted like that.

 

[PinkSpider]

That happens to people every day though; deciding to do something and later regretting it is hardly proof of childhood exploitation.

I still believe it to be. It's not just that, there's just something about a child getting her tits out on the first day she can legally that's unsettling and shouldn't be promoted like that.

She got paid for it... if she chose to do it its not really exploitation.

 

[LHC]

That happens to people every day though; deciding to do something and later regretting it is hardly proof of childhood exploitation.

I still believe it to be. It's not just that, there's just something about a child getting her tits out on the first day she can legally that's unsettling and shouldn't be promoted like that.

If the law didn't make arbitrary decisions on behalf of the people as to when someone can get their own tits out then it wouldn't have to be.

Ownership of another person's body is the worst kind of slavery, and when you explicity deny them the right to decide what to do with their own body, that is effectively what you are promoting.

 

[Mark]

That happens to people every day though; deciding to do something and later regretting it is hardly proof of childhood exploitation.

I still believe it to be. It's not just that, there's just something about a child getting her tits out on the first day she can legally that's unsettling and shouldn't be promoted like that.

If the law didn't make arbitrary decisions on behalf of the people as to when someone can get their own tits out then it wouldn't have to be.

Ownership of another person's body is the worst kind of slavery, and when you explicity deny them the right to decide what to do with their own body, that is effectively what you are promoting.

And the Newspaper in question will have a contract with a minor that she will eventually get her tits out. That's wrong, w/e the age. If she wanted to do it, faair enough-but what if she decided not to do it half way through it? I don't think she could-that means the Paper is effectibily owning this girls body.

If you read the rest of the thread you'll get a pretty good idea of my views on paedohpilia.

 

[kknd_cf]

Just because it's fat and commercial and in your face doesn't mean it's happening elsewhere. You always see those "barely legal" adverts for porn. Have you not? :blink:

 

[LHC]

That happens to people every day though; deciding to do something and later regretting it is hardly proof of childhood exploitation.

I still believe it to be. It's not just that, there's just something about a child getting her tits out on the first day she can legally that's unsettling and shouldn't be promoted like that.

If the law didn't make arbitrary decisions on behalf of the people as to when someone can get their own tits out then it wouldn't have to be.

Ownership of another person's body is the worst kind of slavery, and when you explicity deny them the right to decide what to do with their own body, that is effectively what you are promoting.

And the Newspaper in question will have a contract with a minor that she will eventually get her tits out. That's wrong, w/e the age. If she wanted to do it, faair enough-but what if she decided not to do it half way through it? I don't think she could-that means the Paper is effectibily owning this girls body.

If you read the rest of the thread you'll get a pretty good idea of my views on paedohpilia.

There is a difference between the government denying you the right to do something without your consent and mutual agreement in contract between two consenting partners in business.

 

[raven]

There is a difference between the government denying you the right to do something without your consent and mutual agreement in contract between two consenting partners in business.

By those same standards pedophilia would not be an issue at all as long as the child in question consents and gets paid or am I missing something here?