How Child Porn Laws protect Criminals
So called “child porn” is a difficult and touchy subject. It’s obvious that no one wants kids to get abused. But we live in times where people get harsher jail terms for having some photos on their PC than people who actually rape kids. Where 17-year-old teenagers get charged with the production of child pornography because they made a photo for their boyfriend. Where drawings and stories. while never hurting any kid, are considered to be as evil as photos of sexual abuse. Where the copyright lobby admits to love child porn because it makes it easier for them to get their draconian censorship and surveillance laws passed.
In such times it must be possible to have a serious discussion about our priorities. Do we rather put people on trial because they own some comics with drawings of scantly clad teenage characters than going after the people who actually rape real kids? Do we want to pass laws which are being abused to spy on everyone of us without helping a single child in the process?
Watching a video of yourself you made when you were 17 is illegal in many countries today
And now we might actually get to have this discussion thanks to an opinion piece published by Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party. He is explaining how our current laws are written by religious fundamentalists, how many, many innocent people, both adults and teens, are caught in the process and why we might want to reconsider the laws concerning the possession of “child porn” – which was legal until 1999 in Sweden and many other countries. The Swedish Association of Journalists still is against the ban as the Destroyer blog is pointing out.
This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.
I urge you to actually read the whole essay before you leave any heated comments. Falkvinge is not arguing for the abuse of children to be made legal in any way. Please keep the discussion civilised, thanks.
+1
about 8 months ago
…alright, all comments on the article aside…
…who is the guy in the pic, and are there any other pictures of him, clothes / no clothes / whatever?
Thanks,
Kevin
about 8 months ago
shallow, much?
about 8 months ago
Care to expand that sentence into a full one?
about 8 months ago
5 letters.
Drugs.
Prohibition of drugs has hurt billions over the years, ruined states and created illicit businesses in Mexico that could be greater than most fortune 500 companies. It has never budged.
Why? Because the people (lawyers, jails, contractors) who earn money off it influence the politicians more than the victims. Child porn is but a small fish compared to drugs, yet drugs will take another 1,000 years for legalization.
about 8 months ago
Criminalization of porn of teenagers encourages porn of teenagers to be non-consensual because it’s treated as if someone was raped anyways. A similar thing often happens with statutory rape laws – they prevent someone from judging based on the law if something was actually rape, because it’s treated as rape even if it was mutually enjoyable and consensaual.
about 8 months ago
They will say that no one under 18 can possibly know how to handle something so dangerous as sex which can leave scars for life!!! I wonder how many moral hysterics have watched a baby being born? Now that is so horrible that it is called the “birth trauma”. That’s really something no one ever recovers from. “Blessed event” they baptize that nightmare.
about 8 months ago
I’ve hashed and rehashed the child porn debate. I’m burned out on it for now. So, pardon me, I’m going to droool over the stunningly beautiful boy in the pic. As soon as I saw him, I froze for a good minute. My head explodes with fantasies…
about 8 months ago
I’m with you on that one. I’ve commented on the title’s subject ad infinitum, and wished only to comment on the picture at hand, er, that was posted….
about 8 months ago
parents being rational about their children i think we’d sooner see republicans and democrats work together and accomplish something substantial. If there’s one thing that nearly every parent shares its a butt ton of irrational behavior concerning their child or someone else’s.
about 8 months ago
Unfortunately most laws protect the criminals. In most states if someone murders 6 people, he/they will only get life in prison because any method of death is considered “cruel and unusual” punishment and against there civil rights. The fact that innocent people were murdered is of no concern i guess. So the child rape laws are no different unfortunately.
Too many people make too much money from protecting the criminals. Doctors, lawyers, prisons getting funding for having more people in them, etc; It is the sad truth of the times we live in.
about 8 months ago
god damn it, i watched a bit of the video about stabbing in that essay – my mind went numb for 5 minutes. it’s good that i have a good stomach too because i just ate 20 minutes ago.
about 8 months ago
I think Falkvinge’s argument would be stronger had he avoided relying on Google Glass. Not everyone thinks that this is the future of mobile telephony.
If it is indeed the case that if one takes a picture of an offender in flagrante and hands it to the police so that the perpetrator may be apprehended, one is then at risk of being charged with the offence of creating child pornography, then that is highly regrettable.
about 8 months ago
I think the problem is that viewing pics of ‘underage’ minors by people of an adult age can lead the viewers to start seeing children as sexual beings. Now, whilst research indicates that human sexuality is defined by the age of eight (in that we have all found our orientation by then), and that it is therefore possible to argue that children ARE sexual beings, it is not the best thing for adults to find children sexually attractive. Most adults who are cursed with this attraction (and I speak from experience…I know it to be a curse) have been abused or hurt in their own childhood in some way. In other words, for me to be sexually attracted to children is not a healthy expression of my own sexuality.
How should the law handle situations where children are photographed and the images then displayed for the gratification of adults? Bearing in mind that viewing can sometimes lead on to actual physical contact, it seems right to try and prevent the viewing in the first place. Also, there is a compelling view that suggests that the children are often photographed in an abusive or exploitative context. I am sure that all of us are equally against the exploitation of the weak and vulnerable in society.
In my own case, I was treated (and continue to be treated) quite harshly by the criminal justice system. However, as a result of my treatment I am in the happy position of no longer viewing illegal images. I was for many years absolutely unable to stop my viewing of young boys. It was a definite addiction. I am now free of this addiction, and can stop living a lie.
I have more hope for my future now than I have had for many years.
Please don’t troll me for writing this.
xxx
about 8 months ago
You might be happier being without it, but that doesn’t mean others will feel the same. If you don’t want it, don’t look at it.
Also there is only one credible study of men attracted to boys which I know of, and it did not show any link to having had a hurtful or abusive childhood, contrary to what you say. The only thing it found was there tended to be less access to pornography (!) during childhood.
I don’t agree with your views on photos being necessarily, or even often, exploitative. It can be really gratifying to know someone finds you attractive, which is why so many minors are posting self-pics online.
about 8 months ago
“Most adults who are cursed with this attraction (and I speak from experience…I know it to be a curse) have been abused or hurt in their own childhood in some way. In other words, for me to be sexually attracted to children is not a healthy expression of my own sexuality.”
Well, it’s definitely not healthy to suffer because of ones sexual orientation or because of an addiction to child pornography. I’m glad you got rid of your addiction, I’m sorry of the way you got rid of it.
There is nothing wrong with seeing children as sexual beings. Shouldn’t just be the only aspect you think of when you spend time with boys.
Many boylovers don’t see their sexual orientation as a curse though and many of them haven’t been abused or hurt in their childhood. Some of them even have a nice life which includes boys. Yay us.
about 8 months ago
but of course, not all underage porn is harmful or unwanted by the boy, nor is it a reflection of some past harm in the adult partaking in it with the teen.
I am skeptical that pre-pubescent boys will be able to avoid exploitation, but teens will come to no harm if they agree to whom is allowed to see the pictures and have the power to control who does see them.
Same goes for all porn, but say that about 18+ and you are a prude, say that about under 18 and you are a pervert. Sigh.
about 8 months ago
As a Christian, I am really getting tired of always hearing that the “draconian” child pornography laws are the fault of religious extremists – because, in the US at least, that is simply NOT true. The fault lies at both ends of the political and religious spectrum.
Liberal – Progressives are just as unreasonable because they want to demonstrate their compassion by how hard they try to “protect the children.” I’ve seen it time and time and time again.
So, both sides are guilty.
Meanwhile, there is a museum in this town that has in its collection ancient Greek pottery the possession of which obviously violates the letter of the law of the PROTECT Act (which prohibits drawings depicting minors in sex acts).
about 8 months ago
I agree. The child abuse hysteria is much more from left wing feminists who have been very successful in criminalising male behaviour. It’s about controlling and disempowering men and institutions they perceive as male run. That’s why the liberal media attack churches so vehemently whenever a sexual allegation (however distant or unlikely) occurrs but give women a pass every time.
Here in Australia recently there was a classic example of the hate campaign against men in the media. A father going through a divorce stopped on a bridge and jumped off with his child. The media went balistic calling him violent and basicall evil. A week or so later an almost identical incident occurred in another Australian city but this time it was the mother who jumped off a bridge with a child. The media reaction couldn’t have been different. There was endless soul searching about how something like this could happen. They said she was suffering from mental illness and where was the support. They did everything under the sun except ask her to take responsibility for her crime. While I’m sure the man will be in jail for ever the woman will no doubt be ‘assessed’, given ‘support’ and released to have more children.
This is the result of the war on men. The pornography debate is just one way it has been won by feminists. It’s all about control.
about 8 months ago
I enjoyed your comments re: left winged feminists. I agree that control is their issue. Just consider the acronym LGBT. In the beginning it was GLBT. I could easily go into a rant on this.
about 8 months ago
I’m a feminist, I’m pro-sex, I’m pro-youth and I’ll be happy to dispel any Dworkin/Raymond-based overgeneralizations you might have.
about 8 months ago
I’m rather dismayed by the anti-feminism shown by some here. We should be standing behind the feminist challenge to patriarchy, which is the source of homophobia.
about 8 months ago
If you equate being homosexual with being a woman, perhaps you’re right (though I doubt many would share this view). Even as a homosexual, I’d far rather live in a patriarchy than a matriarchy.
Personally, I’d rather feminists stuck to getting their own rights at nobody’s expense (as far as this is possible) rather than actively quashing the rights of others (namely men and children). There comes a point where we have to ask, do they want equality or special dispensation?
For what it is worth, I think for all the problems women may face at the hands of men, men have been brutalized by women when they are at their most vulnerable, when they are still boys.
We all grow up under a matriarchy for the most part (fathers still, in the main, working full time). A regime of cautiousness, fearfulness and restriction. The caution, fear and rigidity that many women and girls find comforting is contra to a boy’s nature, which is exploration, adventure and investigation. When we are developing as boys, we are constantly being told “be careful”, “don’t do that”, getting dirty is “disgusting”, playing with pretend guns is “violent”, making a worm pie is “awful”, climbing trees is “dangerous” and exploring your own body is “naughty”. Being told off is not enough, we are made to feel guilty about every expression of masculinity, because our mothers don’t understand nor wish to understand it. I’m not saying this is necessarily something conscious, but unconscious, either way it is equally disastrous.
If we really want to talk about unnatural, a charge frequently and ridiculously leveled against homosexuals, what exactly is a boy (past the age of about 6) being brought up almost solely by his mother, is this natural? Do we see any evidence of this in pre-industrial times? How can a woman teach a boy to be a man? How can a woman, consciously or not, not want to suppress what shes deems unwanted masculinity?
The biggest inhibitor of a boys/men is excessive contact with his own mother and any females she may associate with and to a lesser extent, hot housing under the “nuclear family” idiom.
about 8 months ago
America is already basically a matriarchal society. Millions upon millions of boys are growing up in homes without a father, going to school without a male teacher and consequently learning to be a man from hip hop music clips and other popular culture. Australia is not much better. Is it any wonder boys do so much worse than girls at school?
The sad reality is that many women really think boys don’t need fathers.
about 8 months ago
But feminism is tied up with the modern idea of far reaching ‘motherhood’ in which the mother controls the entire life of the child. This creates homophobia because they all want to ‘stop their kids from being turned gay’
Can’t blame men for the homophobia shown by the Million Mums movement.
http://gawker.com/5914527/jcpenney-responds-to-homophobic-boycott-calls-with-gay-fathers-day-ad
Homophobia comes from ignorance, which is what both sexes can be
about 8 months ago
The problems concerning “child pornography” and “pedophiles” are too numerous to mention, here are some:
1. Under laws pertaining to sex a “child” can be an infant or a seventeen year old. No-one in their right mind would argue that there isn’t a huge difference between a 2 year old and a 17 year old on every level, yet they both fall under the term “child” and it is considered the same under law for someone of majority to be sexually active with a 17 year old as with a 2 year old (in countries where age of consent is 18+)
2. The word pedophile is so heavily loaded, every time the word is mentioned images spring to the mind of a “dirty, old man” abusing 4 or 5 year old children, not say a 12, 13 or 14 year old experiencing a consensual sexual relation (save legislation) with a older teen or someone in their twenties for instance.
Of course people hate pedophiles because they conflate them with “dirty, old men” molesting infants, they neither know or particular care that the cases of “true pedophilia” under statutory rape laws is probably less than 10% (likely significantly less)
3. The very people these laws have been set up to protect have been found guilty under them, the case of an older teen (yet still a minor) being convicted as a “dangerous sexual predator” for having sex with someone a year or two younger than himself.
If that isn’t bad enough, you can be convicted of being both victim and abuser if you create nude pictures of yourself (as a minor) and text them on to someone (sexting), who just by receiving them through a text has become complicit in child pornography.
4. Children entering into puberty want sexual relations, this is the whole point of puberty. There was a time when masturbation was called “self abuse”, any child caught masturbating would be beaten and/or other wise come down upon. Now most people consider masturbation for an adolescent a normal, healthy activity, but if they want to seek out true sexual relations and intimacy with another, they are labelled either abuser or abused or both. How is it that masturbation, the act of “pretend sex” is normal and healthy, yet real, loving intimacy with another is abusive.
There are many more points to be made and hopefully someone will make them.
I will finish by saying we are in very dangerous times, as ethnic minorities, women, even homosexuals and the transgendered are fighting for and gaining their rights, the rights of children are diminishing by the day.
An idea of innocence and purity, as if earthbound angels, has grown up around children, that it even extends well beyond the age of reason (around 8) to 17 or 18 years old, what in pre-industrial times would of long been thought of as an adult.
It is anti sex fanatics (the religious) and anti reality fanatics (parents) that forbid any sexual relations for an adolescent, regardless of what we know of biology, nature and need.
This proposed “innocence of the child” is being used as a smokescreen to blind us to the further disenfranchisement of the child as property of it’s parents and the will of society in this brave new totalitarian world.
about 8 months ago
The problems concerning “child pornography” and “pedophiles” are too numerous to mention, here are some:
1. Under laws pertaining to sex a “child” can be an infant or a seventeen year old. No-one in their right mind would argue that there isn’t a huge difference between a 2 year old and a 17 year old on every level, yet they both fall under the term “child” and it is considered the same under law for someone of majority to be sexually active with a 17 year old as with a 2 year old (in countries where age of consent is 18+)
2. The word pedophile is so heavily loaded, every time the word is mentioned images spring to the mind of a “dirty, old man” abusing 4 or 5 year old children, not say a 12, 13 or 14 year old experiencing a consensual sexual relation (save legislation) with a older teen or someone in their twenties for instance.
Of course people hate pedophiles because they conflate them with “dirty, old men” molesting infants, they neither know or particular care that the cases of “true pedophilia” under statutory rape laws is probably less than 10% (likely significantly less)
3. The very people these laws have been set up to protect have been found guilty under them, the case of an older teen (yet still a minor) being convicted as a “dangerous sexual predator” for having sex with someone a year or two younger than himself.
If that isn’t bad enough, you can be convicted of being both victim and abuser if you create nude pictures of yourself (as a minor) and text them on to someone (sexting), who just by receiving them through a text has become complicit in child pornography.
4. Children entering into puberty want sexual relations, this is the whole point of puberty. There was a time when masturbation was called “self abuse”, any child caught masturbating would be beaten and/or other wise come down upon. Now most people consider masturbation for an adolescent a normal, healthy activity, but if they want to seek out true sexual relations and intimacy with another, they are labelled either abuser or abused or both. How is it that masturbation, the act of “pretend sex” is normal and healthy, yet real, loving intimacy with another is abusive.
There are many more points to be made and hopefully someone will make them.
I will finish by saying we are in very dangerous times, as ethnic minorities, women, even homosexuals and the transgendered are fighting for and gaining their rights, the rights of children are diminishing by the day.
An idea of innocence and purity, as if earthbound angels, has grown up around children, that it even extends well beyond the age of reason (around 8) to 17 or 18 years old, what in pre-industrial times would of long been thought of as an adult.
It is anti sex fanatics (the religious) and anti reality fanatics (parents) that forbid any sexual relations for an adolescent, regardless of what we know of biology, nature and need.
This proposed “innocence of the child” is being used as a smokescreen to blind us to the further disenfranchisement of the child as property of it’s parents and the will of society in this brave new totalitarian world.
about 8 months ago
Tim:
That is beautifully and truthfully written. I could only emphasize on your already illustrious points. Thank you.
(Btw, the “spam check” for this post and thread confirmed that I’m an adult.
)
about 8 months ago
indeed….
well, i dont know what the situation is russia is in an exact way but seems Russian government is pretty against gay relationship, and two teen boys having some fun is more likely to cause troubles…
about 8 months ago
I very much agree with Penboy’s comment. Is it true that in your country the born again christian movement is gaining momentum?
about 8 months ago
The male body to me is attractive, I do not believe that to be a bad thing. If a man finds another man attractive there is nothing wrong with that in my eyes. Often youth is a subject for perfection as far as being physical, therefor it is obvious that men will enjoy looking at and admiring younger male models. If it were a str8 man looking at a 12 year old girl that is ok in our society, but a gay man looking at a teenage boy means he is sick in some way..? Society is sick in many ways is my opion. .. To each thier own :) We are human not perfect but aware!!
about 8 months ago
Consider the Ronan Parke phenomenon. His popularity and record sales continue to storme the planet and so has the homophobic cyberbulling of Ronan. When will the world finally admit that teen boys can be incredibly beautiful and admired by everyone.
about 8 months ago
I want to hear Falkvinge’s take on why its not a violation of privacy of the younger person (I’m going to take some evidence based notion of what being to young to decide for yourself is, something a psychologist would describe not the “community concern” based AoC laws that exist in the U.S et al) to have such real/non-simulated porn going around. He’s from the pirate party, privacy of individuals is supposed to be a big thing for him. What could be more private, more personal than your naked form, its exposure to sexual experience?
Where I think these arguments are onto something is that at the same time as this sort of porn was criminalized (80′s-90′s) in places where it wasn’t already on theistic-moral grounds other more vanilla forms of porn were already undergoing a debate about whether they influenced sex crime. The outcome? That the availability of porn is correlated with lower sex crime.
This was the Japanese response for a long time to international critics who were demanding manga depicting nude children etc be banned – that they had lower rates of actual offenses against children so everyone else could shut up basically.
about 8 months ago
The feminist case against pornography is that it is sexual exploitation; children in particular are not able to give informed consent to being exploited.
With something like manga, it seems to me that nobody is exploited, so there is less justification for banning it.
about 8 months ago
No surprise the rise of feminism coincided with pedo-panic. A significant number of feminists see any sex as some form of exploitation.
Those feminists are the ones who long since departed ‘gender equality’ and have built a career on equating gender struggle to Marx class struggle, in which ‘men’ always exploit ‘women’ in every action they do.
Teen sex comes into this because children are the women’s to control and letting a boy have sex with an adult male, even if he wants it, is a violation of her right to control her son.
Also because the younger partner tends to bottom, so he is taking the role of the women and ‘women are always raped’ in sex.
about 8 months ago
“But” wrote:
‘No surprise the rise of feminism coincided with pedo-panic. A significant number of feminists see any sex as some form of exploitation.’
Insofar as there is an unequal distribution of power, adult males are likely to make use of it.
‘Teen sex comes into this because children are the women’s to control and letting a boy have sex with an adult male, even if he wants it, is a violation of her right to control her son.’
There are fathers too, you know?, and they are just as likely to want to protect their offspring from unwanted attention by outsiders.
Does any child really want to have sexual relations with an adult, or is this just a self-serving paedophile fantasy?
about 8 months ago
“Insofar as there is an unequal distribution of power, adult males are likely to make use of it.”
Insofar as there is an unequal distribution of power any group will make use of it, that is the nature of things.
“There are fathers too, you know?, and they are just as likely to want to protect their offspring from unwanted attention by outsiders.”
Protect them from and/or deny them, wanted or unwanted attentions. All adults seem to talk about these days regarding sex and adolescents is vague terms like “waiting for the right time” (over 16/18 depending on the adult’s socialization) or the “right one”, whatever that means. They want to tell their children what to do, as they regard them as their chattel property, rather than inform them and let them please themselves, a much healthier stance.
“Does any child really want to have sexual relations with an adult, or is this just a self-serving paedophile fantasy?”
Adolescent girls and gay/bi/curious/adventurous boys sexually fantasize about late teens to early/mid thirties men, just as “straight” boys do the same with women of a similar age range. Possibly, on average, as much as with their own age range.
You are asking if ANY 13, 14 or 15 year old wants to have sex with 18, 19 or 24 year olds? Seriously, see if you can’t download a clue.
Reality is not your particular socialization, however much you and others (through hate or fear) try to make it so.
Furthermore, did you NEVER fantasize about sex and/or a relationship with an older person as an adolescent, if you did not you are probably far less normal than you believe.
about 8 months ago
“Tim” wrote:
‘You are asking if ANY 13, 14 or 15 year old wants to have sex with 18, 19 or 24 year olds?’
When you’re a teenager, you don’t see 18-year-olds as adults. Adults are the age of your parents, or maybe your teachers.
about 8 months ago
No shit, but the law sees adults as anyone who just had their 18th birthday or older.
So the police think a teen will be as repulsed at making love to an athletic 18 year old twink as they are at being coerced by a 68 year old flabby man. A 3 year difference in age is just as bad to the police as a 53 year difference because the laws are stupid.
Ever tried to seduce a person 3 or 4 years older than you? The vast majority of the world’s population has, why can’t teens do it too?
about 8 months ago
Uh yeah. The whole front page of this site is littered with 18 – 19 – 20 year old adults that some teens on this site find attractive enough for sex.
Not all children are 6 and not all adults are 60.
Mother, father, same thing – its all about controlling their ‘property’ – their children. We were just talking about feminism that leans heavily towards the rights of the mother.
—–
But I guess when Asiffeta turned 18 he magically transformed from an asexual toddler into a sexually mature being who knew all about sex, overnight.
about 8 months ago
“But” wrote:
‘Not all children are 6 and not all adults are 60.’
I was being rhetorical. There are so many kiddie-fiddlers who give the excuse that it was the child who seduced them rather than the other way round.
about 8 months ago
So, it’s impossible for a child (read as adolescent) to seduce an adult now?
Also, kiddie-fiddlers? It seems you can’t partake in sensible and reasonable discourse without using inflammatory, emotional language to try and divert away from good argument and scare people into your way of thinking (or non-thinking, as the case may be).
I’d suggest going back to your copy of The Daily Mail where you’ll find plenty of incensed, unreasonable people willing to share your world view without discussion.
about 8 months ago
“Ben” wrote:
‘Also, kiddie-fiddlers?’
Indeed. Hanging’s too good for ‘em! (See the posting #10 by “T” above.)
about 8 months ago
And herein we see the uselessness of the laws. Kiddie fiddler implies forcible rape of kids under 11 or 12. That is a violent crime. If you are seduced by anything a 6 year old does you are sick.
Not at all comparable with ‘statutory rape’ which is a ‘moral crime’. Where you have 13 – 14 – 15 – 16 year olds who are sexually interested and young men who are the very embodiment of what the teens have seen in porn for years, then yes the underage person might try to seduce the adult in the same way young adults do. Dating. It makes up like a huge portion of teenage literature and really isn’t all that different to how you do it in your 20s (minus alcohol of course).
But the laaaaww sees both as eeeeeeevil ‘underage sex’ – so the baby rapist is the same as the 15 and 18 year old dating teen couple.
about 8 months ago
“But” wrote:
‘Kiddie fiddler implies forcible rape of kids under 11 or 12. That is a violent crime. If you are seduced by anything a 6 year old does you are sick.’
I don’t know how it is in Australia, but in English law, rape is defined in terms of penetration in the absence of consent by the other party. Actual violence need not be involved, though, needless to say, it will aggravate the offence if it does.
I don’t see how a six-year-old could possibly be held to give consent to sexual activity with an adult. Don’t ask me what the age of consent should be, but if you need to impose one, it has to be well above six.
Equating kiddie-fiddling with rape also seems to me to be inaccurate in that many if not most offences involve touching or indecent assault rather than actual penetration.
about 8 months ago
But said “If you are seduced by anything a 6 year old does you are sick.”
Asiffeta said “I don’t see how a six-year-old could possibly be held to give consent to sexual activity with an adult. Don’t ask me what the age of consent should be, but if you need to impose one, it has to be well above six.”
Can you read?, you are in agreement here!
Asiffeta said “Equating kiddie-fiddling with rape also seems to me to be inaccurate in that many if not most offences involve touching or indecent assault rather than actual penetration.”
So what is good touching and bad touching, it needs to be defined. Sadly, it is currently being defined as a music teacher touching a child’s hands to position them on a musical instrument. Even if, by some tiny chance, the teacher is aroused by this, the child knows nothing of this, there is no abuse here!
It seems persecuting actions is not enough, we now need to persecute thoughts and fantasies and seeing how most of us, however briefly, have thought about killing another person, by that logic we should be locked up and the key thrown away. Hanging’s to good for us!
about 8 months ago
???? Asiffeta, But, & everyone else who is commenting about feminists
..
There’s no tolerance under patriarchy for Women or Queers, it’s what makes Queers & Feminists natural allies. I really wish people would read a bit more sometimes. It’s only under the changes created by the advance of Feminism in the late 20th century & it’s challenge to norms about gender and sex that Queers have managed to eek out what freedoms they have.
To be a feminist is not to simply want to ape the domination that men have shown to others, to want to control children. It’s fair to say that feminist critique of patriarchy did uncover a lot of institutionalized & familial abuse of children, that’s a big pro to them, it needed to happen and for that abuse to be criticized/stopped. Its whats been left undone, its where moral panic has simply shifted its focus onto teenagers, relations of equal power etc that remains to be challenged.
There are Feminism*s*, these have undergone evolution, only some have been anti-sex. Criticizing them is retrograde and a bit rich coming from men who owe them so much.
Marx & notions of class struggle are too insightful & mis-understood to be simply thrown in as a cheap explanation.
There’s a lot that could be said, it’s just depressing to see feminism getting blamed here.
about 8 months ago
But feminism and homosexuality are only really weak ‘allies’ because of the fact the male dominated societies were against them both.
Where it comes to children and teens, particularly male children and teens, I do think that feminism has a total lack of understanding. Consent laws exist 99% of the time to protect girls from unwanted sexual advances, and it shows in the fact that the law understands the violation of boys in the same terms as girls.
Girls are always the submissive partner to feminists and now so are boys, because the feminists don’t have any real understanding of male sexual relationships. Feminism poses that men will always be the active one to ‘seduce’ women for sex, so they think boys – who they understand only as submissive parties – will always be forcibly ‘seduced’ by older men, even though that is not true and the ‘seducing’ is two way and mutual in a lot of cases.
Then you come to ‘informed consent’ where, even if a girl is the one knowingly ‘seducing’ a man he should resist? I can’t explain it well, but you see it in the media, a woman comes onto a man, but if he joins in, they pose it as if he was the sole one responsible for, say, the affair. Hiding behind outdated notions of the woman being mentally incompetent or something. It really looks about the same as the talk of teens lacking ‘mental competency’.
Hence the need for feminists to protect teens from the sexuality of men, which HOMOSEXUALITY is about the purest form.
“Turning OUR kids gay” is the claim by so many ‘empowered mother’s’ associations that blend feminist mistrust of men with old fashioned homophobia. Gay men are not women. Any advancement feminism gave us was a secondary if positive outcome of what feminists did in their aims of attacking male domination. If we stand in the way of those aims, we will get trampled.
about 8 months ago
felix said “There’s no tolerance under patriarchy for Women or Queers, it’s what makes Queers & Feminists natural allies”
Ah, the old enemy of my enemy is my friend routine.
I agree that *some* things have changed for the better for *some* homosexuals from the influence of feminism, but this is in no way feminism’s goal and is just a happy coincidence for *some* homosexuals.
The kind of homosexual feminism doesn’t mind is the “substitute girlfriend” homosexual, camp, “out and proud”, effeminate, in an age-matched relationship, loves big “bear” men, basically an emasculated man (btw, no offence if you’re a fem type of guy, this is not a personal thing). They pose no danger to feminism, not being masculine or showing masculine behaviour, so they are allowed to continue as is.
The irony of this stance is that certain feminists have no problem with these kinds of homosexuals, unless their son shows signs of effeminacy, at which time they will do everything in the power to subject to the most horrible “corrective” mind games. So there’s always this delicate balancing act of suppressing masculinity, yet not allowing your son to become a “queer”.
felix said “To be a feminist is not to simply want to ape the domination that men have shown to others, to want to control children. It’s fair to say that feminist critique of patriarchy did uncover a lot of institutionalized & familial abuse of children, that’s a big pro to them, it needed to happen and for that abuse to be criticized/stopped. Its whats been left undone, its where moral panic has simply shifted its focus onto teenagers, relations of equal power etc that remains to be challenged.”
Well, some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.
Feminists do have a particular interest in the physical body and it not being abused (or in some cases, just used), but they have no such qualms about mental abuse. As someone who was spanked on numerous occasions, I can tell you I have little recollection or hang ups about it (not that I endorse it either), but there is plenty of mental abuse I can remember as clear as a bell. I suppose the idea is that if it doesn’t leave a mark, it doesn’t count! I don’t believe that anything has been “left undone”, this is naive in the extreme, feminist tack has just changed from self-empowerment to dis-empowerment of others (a standard model past a certain stage).
felix wrote “There are Feminism*s*, these have undergone evolution, only some have been anti-sex. Criticizing them is retrograde and a bit rich coming from men who owe them so much.”
*Some* owe them much, but like I said earlier a happy coincidence, for some. Women/Feminists had to empower themselves before they could start on the course they’re now on and this involved, by their mutually dis-empowered positions, empowering certain homosexuals to a degree. Now that feminism is mainstream, it has thrown most homosexuals under the bus, just as homosexuals threw “boylovers” under the bus.
There is only a finite amount of power to go around and we cannot all be empowered equally.
In the race to appear as equals (or at least normal) by attempting to modify hetero-normative society yet essentially remain within it, we are increasingly narrowing the range of what is “acceptable” homosexual behaviour, by discarding that which is objectionable to greater society on the chance that some of “us” will integrate. Some day, some of us may achieve parity, but at what cost?
about 8 months ago
“But” wrote:
‘But feminism and homosexuality are only really weak ‘allies’ because of the fact the male dominated societies were against them both.’
The fundamental motive of feminism is the equality of the sexes. If the sexes were equal, there would be no need for feminism.
Anyone who opposes feminism is thus defending male dominance. Do you really want to do that?
‘Where it comes to children and teens, particularly male children and teens, I do think that feminism has a total lack of understanding.’
Whose feminism? Not all feminists have the same thoughts, you know.
‘Consent laws exist 99% of the time to protect girls from unwanted sexual advances, and it shows in the fact that the law understands the violation of boys in the same terms as girls.’
Consent is a very difficult area. Any age at which a young person is legally deemed capable of informed consent to sexual activity is going to be arbitrary; there is no getting away from this. Apart from that, we need to consider the ability of an authority figure, like a teacher, a doctor or a minister of religion, to cajole the vulnerable into letting them have their way.
Saying that the laws exist to protect girls 99% of the time seems to me implausible given that a large majority of the victims of Catholic priests have been boys.
‘Any advancement feminism gave us was a secondary if positive outcome of what feminists did in their aims of attacking male domination.’
Probably true.
‘If we stand in the way of those aims, we will get trampled.’
But why would you want to? What is the value for you of defending the traditional, patriarchal system?
about 8 months ago
My first thought when I saw this photo was, is that me? Same body and facial profile. Centuries ago of course.
about 8 months ago
my first thought when i saw this photo was, are they talking about me? i did all the same, back to 15 16 17 and 18, and now im 19… it would be illegal to see my own pictures in that way, it’s just absurd and insane.
about 8 months ago
it’s really absurd when the situation in the picture is happening on me. im 19 now and my nude photos taken around 15-18 would be illegal and it’s all well done by those congressmen…
about 8 months ago
When I was about 17, I was photographed by a man who paid me well to take some nude pictures. The story was that the photos would be sold to “old anties” for their private collection. I often since wondered if some day thoes pictures might show up. The photo above is not me as Im certain I did not pose in front of a TV but it got me going for a minute,
about 8 months ago
What point are you making? The law sees an 18 year old as an adult, adults are the ones prosecuting (persecuting?) these relationships, as usual the “child” has little input.
about 8 months ago
Well, yeah, because the adults prosecuting have adult things like m o n e y to gain from the prosecution, even if the child suffers nothing but love, kindness and a more positive outlook on life.
By saying the teen can ‘never consent’ the prosecutors protect themselves from the fact the pesky child could get in the way of their m o n e y by stating they weren’t forcibly raped and were willing and love their partner. 100% success rate! easy m o n e y! easy fame for the prosecutor!
about 8 months ago
also the fact that taking a photo of your child in the bathtub is illegal now….ummm i have allot of photos of me like that and so does my brother….but remember this was before it was illegal…but they say…if u have these photos…they will be considered child porn now…even though the child isn’t doing anything that has to do with sex…its effed up….i don’t care if i have nude photos of myself….but my opinion doesn’t matter now does it.