in a secret journal. There was no evidence that he'd acted them out. He'd never even shown them to another person. Dalton was already in trouble with the police, on probation for possessing obscene images of children; while searching his belongings, his probation officer uncovered a notebook in which Dalton had scribbled down terrifying scenarios. The entries described Dalton caging three small children in his basement, molesting and torturing them. At first, the police assumed these were descriptions of real crimes, but it soon became clear that they were fictional. Nonetheless, Dalton was charged with indulging in obscenity involving a minor, and got ten years in jail. 
thousand photos and videos — depict kindergarten girls masturbating and giving blowjobs to adult men: "I posted some more KX," raved one enthusiast. "Inga gets a mouth full of sperm; oh, it's a dream series!" At the time of filming, Inga was six. 
legally speaking, has every single copy of that book become child pornography? If not, why not? What is the difference between Dalton's scribblings and Nabokov's? Is it because one is a novel and the other a journal? Because one man is a great public figure, the other a criminal suspect? After all, each of them was writing fiction. Not a member? Sign up now
July 11, 2001
| OPINIONS |
|
Kiddie porn is the Timothy McVeigh of the sexual imagination: the only form of smut that has literally no defenders, not even among the most dedicated libertarians. Perhaps snuff films (the boogieman of the early anti-porn movement) fall into a similar category, but there is little evidence that these actually exist. Child pornography, on the other hand, certainly does exist, and the anonymity of cyberspace has made it ever more easily available. There's no live-and-let-live attitude toward this material. If perverts get off on children, most people figure, they deserve to go to prison. No measures — censorship, entrapment, life sentences — are too severe in fighting this awful thing.
A recent prosecution takes that approach to its logical extreme — and it's a case, in several senses, of "be careful what you wish for." On July 3rd, in Columbus, Ohio, a man named Brian Dalton was put in prison for writing down his sexual fantasies. He'd written them
The sentence itself isn't surprising, since judges always throw the book at probation violators in sex cases. But the charge is utterly bizarre — and the implications far-reaching: if sexual fantasies, however grotesque, however "unhealthy," can be made illegal, none of us are safe.
Now let me make myself clear. Having written a book on the subject, I would never downplay the horror of child porn: if anything, I'd argue that it's more available and more hardcore than almost anyone outside that deeply hidden subculture actually realizes. Downloading a single image can earn you a federal prison sentence, so while doing my research, I didn't use any visual materials whatever, just text from the bulletin boards. I could offer a thousand quotes to illustrate the reptilian tone of these conversations, but I will just offer one typical posting, in which a collector refers to the legendary "KX series." These images — which run to several
Reading postings like that can make "freedom of speech" sound like a weak and foolish defense. But it's important to understand the distinction here: if Dalton had been writing about adult subjects in his journal, his musings, however horrendous, would have been protected by the Bill of Rights. In 1984, a federal child protection act removed First Amendment protections from any material whatever that involved minors — and the courts have upheld that proviso. In practice, this means that any vaguely suggestive photo of a minor may be deemed child porn by a prosecutor — a distinction that has proven malleable enough to include nude pictures taken by grandparents and family portraits by photographer Sally Mann.
It's already cliché to point out that many great works of literature contain material that, according to the increasingly broad legal definition, would be considered kiddie porn. Nabokov's Lolita is the classic test case. And indeed, Lolita — a book whose narrator drugs and molests his prepubescent stepdaughter — has been termed both a horror-show and a masterpiece. But in light of the Dalton case, one might legitimately wonder if the novel's protective status as literature really holds up. Whatever else it is (a moral satire, a cunning word game), the book is a turn-on. Of course, being dead, Nabokov can't be prosecuted. But since possession of kiddie porn has been deemed just as bad as manufacturing it,
History demonstrates that the nation's district attorneys cannot be relied on to be its literary critics. But even if they could — even if Oklahoma police hadn't seized videotapes of the satirical German movie The Tin Drum because of a symbolic sex scene, even if the government didn't cry "kiddie porn" as an excuse to crack down on sexual minorities of all stripes — the Dalton case would still be troubling.
The central issue here is the right to fantasize, to play with ideas, even if those ideas strike most people as revolting or dangerous. An analogy that comes to mind here is the after-effects of Columbine, which provoked school authorities to impose a zero tolerance policy on anything that a teacher understands as a hint of violence, whether written, spoken, or drawn. As a result, the last few years have witnessed an official reign of terror for any teenager who might be seen as deviant or dissident — and God help any bright kid with a twisted sense of humor. I very much hope that their Orwellian experiment is not about to be projected onto the erotic imagination. We need fantasy; we live by fantasy. Arguably, too, fantasizing about dark deeds keeps us from acting them out. But even if such fantasies serve no therapeutic purpose, cracking down on private thoughts is a dangerous mistake.
I doubt if legions of libertarians are presently en route to Columbus to demonstrate on behalf of a man who fantasizes about torturing kids, and frankly, that's a shame. Because these questions are only going to grow blurrier and more troubling as time passes. What about drawings or paintings of children and teens? Computer-created graphics that don't use any actual children as models? Scientific or journalistic accounts? If the police were to decide that these, too, have crossed the line from literary or journalistic use to masturbatory fantasies, then the Dalton precedent suggests that writers, publishers and readers could be prosecuted. Even web readers. If you clicked on this article — if you read the passage about Inga above — you might now be a child pornographer. You protest: "but it was a serious discussion about sex, nothing bad!" Ah, tell it to the jury.
|
Commentarium (83 Comments)
What a fine article by Jenkins, who I presume is the Distinguished Profdessor of History and Religious Studies at Penn. State.
I've been very concerned for years that the punishment for involvement with kiddy porn is out of all proportion to the crime. People lose careers and even lives over this stuff.
Lets have more stuff my Jenkins and more coverage of this topic.
I agree, the article is well written, but zero tolerance is the only way to handle this thing. Messing with kiddos is just plain sick. What we have to realize is that some of our laws are generated out of what I would refer to as a "social more". (procounced mor-ay). Kiddie porn is a social more, something considered by most of the general populus as a truly heinous act. Even computer generating an image of sex with a child digitally is offensive and sick. It is something that strikes at the core of individuals. The scene being described about a six year old performing fellatio on an adult. What the hell is wrong with someone that finds that a turn on? I am a liberal individual, I have swung, had sex with multiple partners, done lot's of things that the conservative right would consider horrible. But you gotta keep the mitts off the kinder. This is not a fetish property, it's criminal. Think of when you were a kid, if you had a halfway decent life, it's the one time when you have complete innocence, and naivete. It lasts till around adolescence, then things get complicated, and the rest of our lives are spent in that arena. So this is less about the images, and their constitutionality, and more about the loss of innocence at far too early an age, and those who steal that innocence.
I enjoied this article. It is important to examine the "slippery slope" of censorship very closely, and this article reminded me why. It also made me want to remind all my clients (I'm a lawyer) to burn their journals, just in case.
Zero tolerance would have meant no "Lolita," and that is reason enough for me to agree that, even in policing the most deviant aspects of society, sometimes the law can go over the edge.
I couldn't agree more: The legal blurring of fantasy and reality, fiction and fact, has ominous consequences for all of us who believe that sexuality should be and is about both. For a stimulating discussion on this topic, I recommend Laura Kipnis' fine book on pornography in contemporary America, Bound and Gagged, particularly the first chapter.
I would like to wholeheartedly agree with the opinion that thoughts, however horrible, should not be procecuted. There IS such a fine line, between literaly value and porn, in so many cases. And the parallel to the post-Columbine crackdown is an approprate one. After the Columbine's so-called Trenchcoat Mafia were blamed for the massacre (when in fact, the boys had nothing to do with the group of not-so-popular teenagers who wore trenchcoats) I was victimized for my fishnet stockings, both work on my legs, and Madonna-style on my wrists. I am a suice-attempt survivor, and was forced into therapy by my school because they thought, because of my sometimes anti-social behavior, history of self-inflicted injries and my fishets, i could "pull a Collumbine" The crackdown in schools all over the country, even in my tiny, liberaly school in a large city, was immense. It scares me to think that any mildly perverted person with a penchant for rape fantasies or S&M, or an attraction to younger-looking people could turn into massive witch hunts.
it is a judgement case to determine what is right and wrong and how to interpret our laws, no matter how broad they will be.
it should be common sense regarding how to incriminate the author of a great novel verses a convicted criminal who both use "kiddie porn" in their writing.
obviously the teacher or authority will be able to tell the difference between a smart kid with a twisted sense of humor and a deranged, antisocial adolescent with a bad homelife - or that person shouldnt be a teacher or a person in the authority to deal with the student who would accidentally or intentionally threaten the safety of a school
the question is: Who is to blame? The lawmakers and interpreters or the warped sense of humor and the
psychopath.
Defending the rights of an individual who violates or participates in the continued violation of others
personally, i think this case may be one of the most terrifying things i've ever heard of. when does it seem like it's ok for someone to be prosecuted for what they write? sounds like we're getting into something called "thought crime" to me....
I gotta say, I am horrified as the mother of two small children with everything to do with kiddie porn, BUT I am just as horrified with the concept of prosecuting someone for their fantasies. This man was facilitating only his own fantasies, so we can't even claim that by writing them down he was helping others with their "sick" fantasies.
I wonder as well if our treatment of child sex offenders and our general attitude towards them doesn't make it worse for the children involved on the shame front, but that is merely an idle musing.
Someone commented that they felt that teachers and administrators would be able to tell the difference between a child with a dark sense of humour and a sociopath. As a former teenager with a dark sense of humour I can assure this person that that really doesn't follow.
I wanna type more but duty calls in little baby voices
Okay, everyone back up to the first paragraph where the author states that this dude was already on probation for crimes against children. They found this journal during a search for a probation violation. Helloooooooo..... if anyone thinks that these writings were only private "thoughts" and would not have been or had not already been acted out, they are sadly mistaken. Huge difference between this guy and Joe Jones who keeps a journal but who has never been accused or CONVICTED of a child porn crime. I feel very strongly that anyone who has gotten into trouble with the law for this kind of thing should have NO rights, none-DON'T have any thoughts about children at all-know that if you do, bye-bye-jail, where you deserve everything you get, every day for a long time. Lets not press the old censorship panic button here, folks-this guy probably had a record of this kind of crap a mile long and was doing something if his p.o. was searching his room.
I very much agree, what a fine line there is to cross between what is right and what is wrong. And then there is what is in between.
Well done!
I just saw "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" yesterday. How acceptable is it, if we can create animations that almost look real, if a kiddie porm were done in such animation? Is it condoning a child molester's deviance, or is it giving a person's disease an outlet so that it does not affect children?
I can only think of one thing to say on this subject which I haven't yet heard or seen in print:
Any author (or painter or whatever) who wants to produce material which could potentially be labelled "child pornography" just has to be smart enough to find their way around the laws. Ann Rice, for example, wrote a series of books in which a fifteen-year-old girl plays bottom in every type of nonconsensual BDSM scene imaginable, day in and day out, for over a year. And keep in mind that this series of books helped bring BDSM literature into the meainstream!
As far as I know, the books were never tried as child pornography because 1) Ann Rice was/is a successful and respected author who 2) had/has enormous financial and legal resources which could get all charges dropped on the grounds that 3) the girl in the book had been in an enchanted sleep for a hundred years and was therefore technically one hundred and fifteen years old, well over the age of consent in the U.S.
I'm aware that this whole school of thought completely ignores the basic philosophical argument of having the freedom to write and draw one's fantasies, however scabrous, as long as nobody is harmed. But keep in mind that cops, lawyers, and judges ignore it as well.
Regarding PGC's comments that "Messing with kiddos is just plain sick...Kiddie porn is a social more, something considered by most of the general populus as a truly heinous act"--although I agree that the actual creation of child pornography and the exploitation of children should not be tolerated, I hold firmly to the belief that fantasizing about such things is an inalienable right. They are thoughts, and nothing more. I have fantasized about countless scenarios I would never dream of doing in real life, and brought myself to climax in the process. Actually being presented with a given situation would likely repulse me, but the THOUGHT of it--the dirty, naughty, socially taboo thought of it--is an immense turn on. Fantasies are to be indulged in; that's why we have these great big creative brains. So yes, prosecute the people taking pictures and causing physical and psychological harm to the young ones, but don't penalize people who get off on the idea--whether they express their thoughts in a journal, a short story, an email or a chat room--because the numbers are staggering.
Whilst I can appreciate what you say about personnal thoughts/fantasies, however distastful, being exempt from prosecution, there has to be a 'zero tolerance' approach when the subject is sexual corruption of children.
Too long has the UK Government promised a crack-down on perpetrators of crime. The most heinous of which, is child pornography - Capital Punishment is the only answer I have to anyone involved in this activity. To betray a child's trust and pillage their innocence is abhorrent and cannot be considered excusable however you may wish to intellectualise it. If this is tolerated - how much lower is our society prepared to sink to?
Whilst I can appreciate what you say about personnal thoughts/fantasies, however distastful, being exempt from prosecution, there has to be a 'zero tolerance' approach when the subject is sexual corruption of children.
Too long has the UK Government promised a crack-down on perpetrators of crime. The most heinous of which, is child pornography - Capital Punishment is the only answer I have to anyone involved in this activity. To betray a child's trust and pillage their innocence is abhorrent and cannot be considered excusable however you may wish to intellectualise it. If this is tolerated - how much lower is our society prepared to sink to?
Thinking it is often the precursor to DOING IT ... You cannot afford tolerance with child-pornographers whether it is by their thought or deeds. They are the lowest form of life deserving neither understanding nor, mercy.
I'm an attorney here in Columbus. The day I read about the case I called around to volunteer to help on post-conviction relief; no takers yet.
Here are a few useful facts.
The case is from a trial court, not an appellate court; the case isn't precedent for anything.
Dalton pleaded guilty, so he can't appeal. However, there is a way to help him out: a post-conviction motion to withdraw a guilty plea. That motion might or might not be granted, but at least it would get the issues into court, and a denial of that motion could be appealed.
The judge who sentenced him is one Nodine Miller. She is getting increasingly idosyncratic in her rulings. She recently accused a senior prosecutor of lacking integrity, and worse, because he would not take the blame when she gave a criminal early release from prison, and the release turned out to be unpopular. In a prior case, she ruled "as a woman," although sexual bias is verboten for Ohio judges.
The Ohio statute is aimed at using real children in porn, not at inventing imaginary children. Every reported case involving that statute, that was appealed, understands that distinction.
At the time of the sentence, the attorneys involved, if the local newspaper quoted them accurately, were not aware of any Ohio cases contradicting Judge Miller's unique interpretation of the statute. There is at least one Ohio case, from a different appellate district, that expressly discusses this issue and comes down on the other side.
But if Dalton will not consent to defending himself, nothing can be done.
I'm glad Nerve and Jenkins took a look at this story, as I've seen far less coverage of it then I would have expected. It probably wasn't a startling decision given the evergreen of a moral panic that kiddie porn seems to be. (How about the plain old physical abuse, or neglect, or poverty dealt to the majority of abused children?) Funny that Dalton goes to prison not long after Quills gets academy award nominations. (Go check the ages of some of the victims in the venerable Marquis' works.) Perhaps not so funny, just typical hypocricy. I haven't heard of a case of a convicted murderer (or to make the analogy more precise, someone who's been convicted of owning photographs of murder) get ten years in prison for writing a murder fantasy in his journal. Don't hold your breath. This nation was built on murder. It wasn't built on child-molestation (for the most part). Of course the exploitation of children for any purpose is a terrible crime. But when there are no children involved (and this is where the digital question comes in) then what are we talking about? We're talking about legislating thought and nothing more. I recommend North Dakota for the gulags.
. . . but (heaven help us) Dalton didn't publish his stuff, and apparently had no intention of doing so; does that make Nabokov WORSE?
It is a standard technique for professionals in sex offender treatment to have patients keep a diary of their sexual fantasikes. But, the patients are usually pretty limited intellectually and don't know what the significance of such writing are. A typical "ex" patient, child sexual offender, will leave with the technique and not understand it. It is also common to do masturbatyory records on their fantasies as well. I believe that can be verified by Fred Berlin, M.D., of John Hopkins and Gene Abel, M.D., who lives in Atlanta. It was clearly a mistake unless there is more to the story.
Thanks for writing that, it was necessary. Canada's recent kiddy porn ruling explicitly exempted journal accounts from prosecution. But, ironically, Canada doesn't even purport to champion free speech, only "justifiable" speech.
I am one person who wishes she could help out our perverted friend. Not being a fan of child pornography myself (and so having nothing to hide when the police batter down my door for writing a defense of kiddy porn) I've written a "rant" with a pro-kiddy porn spin. Not pro in the "let's rape kids and take pictures," but rather in deciding that distributing pictures of children is a civil matter, while the actual taking of the pictures is the criminal act. Um... well, at the most it might be interesting to read, anyway, and was an exercise in "argument," for me.
http://www.sarcasticgirl.com/rants/freespeech.HTML
The correct statement would be, "None of us IS safe." The writer of the article needs to return to Middle School since he writes, "None of us are safe." Otherwise, the article is aptly named.
When I was 12, I sought out, found, and looked at kiddy porn just for the heck of it. Is the law the same when it is a child looking at child porn? After all, it would be considered perverse for a 12 year old to have sex with an adult, so isn't it less preverse for a 12 year old to be looking at porn involving people within 5 years or so of their own age rather than porn involving people more than 15 years older than them?
Here is official U.S. orthodoxy on the issue, taken from an Ohio case about possession of child porn:
Both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Ohio have found unequivocally that children are seriously harmed by the mere possession of pornography in which they are depicted. In State v. Meadows (1986) . . . the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a statute criminalizing the mere possession of child pornography did not violate the First Amendment. The Meadows court . . . describe[d] the injuries created by the possession and dissemination of child pornography:
" . . . the materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation." . . .
[C]hild pornography involves, by its nature, the physical, mental and sexual abuse, seduction and harmful exploitation of children. The depictions sought to be banned by the state are but memorializations of cruel mistreatment and unlawful conduct. Additionally, such material would continue to exploit and victimize the children shown by haunting them in the future." Meadows, supra . . .
The Meadows court further noted:
"'[P]ornography poses an even greater threat to the child victim than does sexual abuse or prostitution. Because the child's actions are reduced to a recording, the pornography may haunt him in future years, long after the original misdeed took place. A child who has posed for a camera must go through life knowing that the recording is circulating within the mass distribution system for child pornography." . . .
Question, can a 30-year-old be harmed by distribution of a picture that is 25 years old, in which he or she is not recognizable?
Question, if it is harmful to know that old (unidentifiable) pix re in circulation, is the harm from that more or less than the harm from knowing that a criminal record (clearly identified as yours) is in circulation?
Question, would a Holmesian analysis be right: the community is going to destroy child pornographers; a theory to justify the destruction can wait.
I thought the article identified a serious issue that is often over looked by all the pro-liberty anti-censorship groups out there. While it could be argued that in the case of Dalton, as a criminal with a bad track record when it comes to child porn, the difference may be the decision by the judge as to whether the journal may in fact be a planned account of what he may do in the future as opposed to someone who write similar things without a past history? But then there is the fear that a judge may deem one person to be of no risk, when in fact that could be the very opposite.
A very interesting thought-inspiring read.
"What is the difference between Dalton's scribblings and Nabokov's? Is it because one is a novel and the other a journal? Because one man is a great public figure, the other a criminal suspect? After all, each of them was writing fiction."
Is the author being disingenous here?
Socially, the differences proposed between the two writers are the crux of the matter. "Fiction" is a social consensus construction. A book written and published as a novel (says so in the subtitle), even if, as in Lolita, the novelist frames the story as a true one written by the molester (with "real" journal entries reconstructed for one chapter). All this literary gamesmanship, and the fact that the novelist is a professor of literature, signal that this is fiction.
A journal discovered in the course of a police search of the home of someone already in trouble for owning/buying/selling child porn is likely to be attributed differently. The journal is real, the contents consistent with assumptions about its author, and the unimaginative police and prosecutors under the emotional influence of disgust and the ability to weild moral power.
In short, the attempt to equate the two falls short of pursuasive.
Consider New York Times opinion on a shark attack in Florida ... "Many people now understand that an incident like the Arbogast attack is not the result of malevolence or a taste for human blood on the shark's part but instinctive feeding behavior and a case of mistaken prey. . . . Inevitably, an incident like this one reinforces a nearly pleasurable cultural hysteria about sharks--the kind induced by the movie "Jaws"--when what it should really do is remind us yet again how much we have to learn about them and their waters."
Can one see a connection?
Good article.
This comment isn't directly in point, but thematically similar, as it involves the implications of treating child porn as so abhorrent as to warrant special legal rules that, in other contexts, may well provoke outrage.
I am an Australian lawyer. Some time ago, my firm acted for a fellow aged about 20, who was charged with having had sex with an under age girl (15 at the time). He met her at a nightclub, and a sexual relationship (which endured for some months) ensued. The 20something guy consistently maintained that he had believed the girl to be of age (16 in my jurisdiction - he, in fact, maintained he believed her to be 18). The relationship developed with her mother's knowledge & apparent consent.
Anyway, when he was charged by police acting on the girl's complaint after the relationship finished, a jury trial was held. It was open to him to defend the charge on the basis that he honestly and reasonably believed her to be of the age of consent (16 or more). The jury accepted his defence.
However, the fellow had also once taken a Polaroid photo of the girl fellating him, which she also told the police about, and he was charged with possession of child porn. To this, no defence on the basis of one's belief as to age is open, and, accordingly, the man pleaded guilty to the offence, on my firm's advice.
Bizarrely, no offence was committed by the act itself, but the possession of a photo of the act left him criminally liable foir a child porn offence ...
I liked the article.
Why?
Did anybody ever thought about people, who, in cases of fantasizing about something, imagined to be the kid? So, I do. What is now, if I write down my sexual fantasies? Should I be put in jail because I 'like' to see myself as a victim? I am totally against child porn, but I am also for the freedom of thought.
I know *many*, and I mean *many* WOMEN, who have fantasies about sex involving teens or young kids. Most of these women are between 16 and 20 - and they would never harm a child. And now? Put them all to prison?
I read every response to this article, and read the article itself with an open mind. And tried to keep my anger out of the act, and look at the reasoning.
I am a big supporter of Fantasy, however when those fantasy-based thoughts start crossing the line, it makes me start to worry tremendously for my OWN children.
I have published school pictures of my children on my web-site, and now I am VERY tempted to take them off, just for the single thought that there are perverted individuals out there looking at my beautiful babies faces and FANTASIZING about them.
That is an affront to my children, completly and utterly. And to anyone whom entertains thoughts about Harming, yes harming whether through thought or deed, anyone whom is not of an age to truly understand what they are doing and participating in, I am truly sorry that you have that type of base mentality that you would consider robbing a child of the only time in our entire lives where we should be FREE from perversion.
I have taken pictures of myself and sent them to those whom I have deemed my friends, and when those pictures ended up with people whom I never SENT them to, that was a true insult to me. I took those pictures for THOSE specific people who they were sent to, NOT to be sent to anyone else.
Just because something becomes digitized does not give the person rights to do whatever they please with it, and I consented to DOING those pictures by my own choice, for ONLY those people.
Those children did not, and had no POSSIBLE way to truly understand what was happening to them, and will have nightmares for years because they know, instinctivly, what they were forced to do was WRONG.
Consenting adults interacting with other adults is one matter. Fantasy or reality. Media, cyberspace, phone or emails.
Adults victimizing children should not be allowed in any sense.
This man IS a victimizer of children, without a doubt.
Honestly, I find the entire idea of the book "Lolita" abborhent, and will never read it myself for the fact that my thoughts are utterly repelled by the thought of engaging in any type of sexual act with a CHILD.
There ARE children now whom no longer LOOK as children should and at earlier and earlier ages.
I, myself, looked to be 20 when I was 15. That does not give anyone the right to look at me, knowing what my age was at the time, and still fantasize about me. Because I WAS a minor.
Adults are to be the Protectors, the Fighters FOR the Children.
NOT the ones whom destroy all that those children are. In any form.
Thoughts like these are to remain within the heads of the deviants, or to be destroyed once they are let out in that media they choose. NOT to actually involve any child, and hopefully they will find their release in just the thought alone.
I would love to have any and all Child-Molesters Branded, ala the Scarlet Letter. Recently there was a Child-care Giver here where I live whom was convicted of molesting and PIMPING out the children in her care to deviants whom paid her for masturbation of themselves and of the children, and all were "too young to talk", by her own words.
Does that mean that these children will have no memory of the strangers, and even the one whom they were entrusted to, doing things that just should not have happened to them?
I doubt that, and believe these poor children will have dark nightmares for most of the rest of their lives...
Just because no pictures were taken does not mean that no crime happened, and taking or creating pictures will have the same effect of perpetuating that. I would like to see proof that since the intercedence of the Internet and readily available "fantasy indulgence", that the actual instances of child molestations have dropped.
I believe they have increased...
none of us are safe
This is grammatically incorrect. "None" is an abreviation for "not one" and is therefor singular.
It should read:
none of us is safe
In the last paragraph, you hypothesize that I would be treated as a child pornographer for reading your article, and that I should be shocked by this. The truth is, if anyone knew that I was looking at this site, I would indeed be labelled as aberent and subject to discipline.
Can anyone give me a case site or more information on the Brian Dalton case mentioned in this article. You can send the information to leone@amper.com.
One earlier post brought up a good point -- what if the "consumer" of child porn is himself a child -- which I'd like to expand. People often talk about the sexual "innocence" of children. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I was sexually curious long before puberty, and based on personal experience, I would say many boys are the same way. When I was about 9, my friend and I used to act out mild little BDSM fantasies -- and we'd never had access to any type of pornography, gay, straight, child or otherwise. Anyway, he wanted to have sex with me -- I never did -- and he claimed to have done it with other friends. My point is, who would be considered "responsible" for such a crime? IS it a crime, under those conditions? I've often thought of writing about these experiences; as an adult, would I be considered a pornographer for doing so?
Great article! One point that I don't think should be overlooked is child beauty pageants. They really do creep me out. However, if we were to apply the popularly believed reason for the appeal of lipstick (that bright, full lips suggest sexual arousal) to putting makeup on children... every mother that puts lipstick on her young daughter would be subject to charges of child pornography and abuse. The difference between thoughts and actions should never be overlooked, otherwise we will all be in jail.
You are going to love this one. I know a teacher that was charged with having inappropriate contact with a student. He was later convicted even though the student couldn't recall when the single alleged event happened and none of the 30 other students she says were present could recall the incident. During the course of his persecution, the state wanted him to view child pornography so that he could be monitored and it could be determined if he "reacted" to it. He refused. My interest is this: why is it legal for the state to posses child porn and insist that potential suspects in criminal cases view it? Does this use of child porn also harm the victim?
I forgot to mention that the student in the previous comment was 16 years old at the time. This is relevant as she should have been old enough to remember the event.
i'm sorry, but if you or anyone else is "fantasizing" about fucking or otherwise molesting children, then something is seriously wrong. and as for having no defenders, thinking about having sex with little kids is not something that deserves defending. anywhere. and i am appalled that nerve would support this article.
i agree w/ you however....are society has changed and so w/it the laws ,,,,,tooo many people have ruined the constitiution and its intent....are founding fathers would have done far worse to this trash....im sick of the goddamn left left left wing liberals...that thinking is over and so is that way of life im not a right winger im a godamn american who has had enough....if i must suffer or my children must suffer because of less freedoms in the way we think or talk then so be it...we are taliking about kiddy porn .......please dont send me some retoric that if in these cases we allow this then we stand to lose other rights because that is a bunch of left liberal bullshit get a life loser
ive scralled down and noticed a few comments from attorneys willing to help this gentlemen out....good god have the attorneys of this country....demeaned them selves so much already that they would protects the rights of this garbage ......im sure in there small worlds its all for the sake of are freedoms AND THERE POCKET BOOKS ...AND MAYBE CAREERS GOOD GOD HAVE SOME DIGNITY!!!!
Your atricle strikes a (unfortunatly) prescient chord. I know... I'm am a First Amendment attorney.
On October 30, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft. The case, dubbed by many as the "virtual child porn law" case, will decide whether the current federal child porn statute (18 USC 2256) is constitutional. How could a child-porn statute be unconstitutional you ask???
Well... 2256 makes the depiction of someone who "appears to be a minor" or who "conveys the impression" of a minor engaging in "actual or simulated" sexual activity into child porn. Thats right bucko..., a 40 year old woman dressed in a Cathoilic school uniform with pigtails pretending to hump the leg of her teacher is just as illegal as a film of a six year old giving a real blowjob. Then, of course, there's the problem of who gets to decide whether a work "conveys the impression" or whether the individual "appears to be" a minor. Bet it won't be someone dedicated to free expression!
Now... I'm no supporter of child porn... not by a long shot. I believe that the purveyors of child porn, REAL CHILD PORN (persons under 18 engaging in actual sexual conduct or clearly lewd exhibitions of the genitals of minors) should be put away for life. (I do have a seven year old nephew!) But... and its a big but... a description of a fantasy... or a movie which deals frankly with minors engaging in sex by either (for adults) using adults to portray minors engaging in sex (as the Supreme Court understood in New York v. Ferber), or having anyone portray simulated sex (see the Exorcist; Porkey's; The Tin Drum; Summer of 42; Lolita (either version)) must fall under protected speech unless found to be obscene under the Miller test (see Miller v. California).
Bottom line, the restriction of freedom of speech is a slipery slope; if today we criminalize fantasizing about children, who knows what thoughts the government may criminalize tomorrow.
I found this article by mistake on a search engine, but once I started reading it I had to read it to the end.
The outlined case deeply disturbs me as is almost trying to stop free THOUGHT. We have already lost our rights to free speech and lost all of our privacy rights on the internet with the FBI's new scanning software I read about and so now the government feels they need to take yet another basic right off us?
Pedofiles are a very touchy subject. Just recently a British TV channel was made to make a public apology for broadcasting a program which made fun of the way the media treats pedofiles - making it even funnier (to me anyway) as they were reacting in the exact way the program was making fun of.
I have strong opinions on the subject having known a pedofile for a long time (via the net) and hearing the story from their point of view. What people seem to fail to realise is it is infact a genetic disorder, just like a homosexual person is homosexual because of a gene. Yes, I know this hasn't been proven yet for pedofiles but I'm certain it will be one day.. Think back 60 years or so and homosexuals were treated in the same way pedofiles are today - so it does make you wonder how pedofiles will be treated in 60 years time?
My last point is to ask of you that when you next see a story on the news about a "pedofile" who has murdered a little girl, remember that this is not a pedofile, this is a murderer. The media is the main culprit for pedofiles reputations, ready to deem anyone who commits a crime which in any way involves a child a "pedofile" when that is NOT what they are. From speaking to my friend, he would never dream of harming a child - remember that pedofiles are just people that love children in the same way you love your wife/husband/partner.
Paul Blower
mercior@hotmail.com
hmmmm. the subject matter shouldn't be illegal to write about, but i agree with the court's decision to lock teh guy up. it's a contextual thing, this guy was journalizing his ultraviolent tendencies, and, well, he might just have acted on them. what was this guy like? was he a total skell who really felt like he might just lock up babies and poke em pretty bad? we need to be free to write about pretty much anything, but it looks to me like this guy was caught and that he needs to be out of the way of doing harm. it is a slippery slope, like one response further down says.
Fantastic article - this is such a difficult subject to deal with.
child porn is wrong, not because children aren't sexual - experts and common knowledge admit that they are -, but because it is a violation of the concept of informed consent. legally, our society has decided that persons under 18 are not mature enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions, so they cannot make an informed consent to certain acts. I would say the same about bestiality - a responsible person is taking advantage of a dependent being.
of course, fantasy is a completely different thing. Almost everyone I know has at least one sexual fantasy that would be judged illegal in some way if carried out in real life, and rightly so. god help us all if our fantasies and thoughts were judged like our actions.
You wrote the article, you posted it. I only read it. This is entrepment. I don't apprciate that.
really interesting, and well worth ever-extensive discussion. =====the references in the feedback to various injustices that obtain when a 20 y.o has congress with a 15 y.o would be easily disposed of by following scandinavian age of consent thresholds which i think are 12 in one country and no more than fifteen anywhere. (could someone determine this so im not guessing? thanx)====now the real pedophilic horrors , of which i was a victim involve adults and the prepubescent and that needs to be stopped and viciously prosecuted. andrew vachss, who wirtes those awful revenge books to make money and fund his pro bono work for abused children says he never met a pedophile (and he met a lot when he ran a prison) who was dystonic about his behaivor. vachss thinks this means that they are not amenable to rehabilitation and therefore should be given life sentences no later than the second offense. i think this idea has merit. there would be plenty of prison capacity freed up if drug USE was decriminalized.====the responder who argued that this will be found to be genetic is making a ludicrous argument, since the gay gene is still being debated although the biopsychiatrists franchise would have us all believe that everything is genetic when the science is highly questionable about queerness, booze, depression. ====what a mess!
Hi,I just had a chance to read this article. I find it very interesting. My only concern is would Mr. Dalton be put in jail for his private thoughts if he hadn't been on parole? It seems to me that they felt he somehow violated his parole? If that's the case, then maybe it should be stated when they let these creeps out that writing down sick thoughts could violate their parole. I mean if this man hadn't been an ex-con, would they still be able to put him in jail? I find it scary, but I'm all for locking up the child molestors. I honestly don't think these people can be rehabilitated, I just don't see it. Although the article states that writing down our thoughts can help us not do what we write, I just don't buy that 100%. Good article nonetheless.
I'm a psychology student and the effect of genes is a lot more than you realise. The gay gene has been 90% proven already and I strongly believe that the pedofile gene will be proven, yet it will be harder to prove because: while say, 50% of people have the "pedofile" gene only 50% of those will actually go on to become pedofiles - I think that their environment is what triggers off the "becoming a pedofile". And as we live in a very anti-pedofile society not many people with the gene will actually develop to be pedofiles (Although its arguable that with the availability of it on the internet this may "trigger" more pedofiles) ===== Which would also explain why there are more homosexuals these days - because while the same number of people used to have the gene, most of them didnt "activate" the gene because of a strongly anti-homosexual environment yet today we are much more open to homosexuals and so a lot more people with the homosexal gene are letting it kick in. ===== Out of all the explanations for homosexuality (and depression) we studied, the biological model has the most evidence and massively outweighs any psychological explanations.
An article i think you should all read: http://www.lege.cz/archiv/pedo1.htm
re paul's recent post: just because you are a (wow!) psychology student doesnt make your swallowing genetics arguments any more impressive.====the viciously conservative subtext of the dominant ideology in the nature/nurture should be understood. here we have a society full of miserable people and its all in our genes? (see 'not in our genes' by lewontin et al which includes prominent gneticists) and the NYT constantly reassures you that they have found another gene marker,thereby solving another disease mystery, blah blah like this is all value free? ==== at this point, naturists are actually just arguing, and it is an argument which may get a pedophile treatment instead of life and especially instead of the counseling s/he needed as a child when s/he (probably) got abused
Have you not read that article? Being a pedofile is NOT a crime, but unfortunately pedofiles are often mistaken for child abusers, which is a completely different disorder. ==== A Pedofile can receive just as much "treatment" as a gay person - ie NONE. It is a sexual preference, not some kind of treatable disease and it is definately not a mental illness. The studies Wilson & Cox did shine some light onto the subject: ==== "A Pedophile is a person who is attracted to children more than to adults. Most pedophiles 'Want to create a 'consenting' intimate relationship with a child for whom he may have affectionate feelings'" (Wilson & Cox, 82). When Wilson & Cox asked the Pedophiles they interviewed, what their perfect relationships would be, with legal sanctions removed, One said, 'I would make more friends. Take them to movies, restaurants, the zoo, help them with schoolwork, enjoy each other's company. Love them.'. ==== If you hear a story on the news about someone who has abused (sexually or otherwise) a child then that person is NOT a pedofile (despite the fact the media will dub them that) - a pedofile would never harm a child and cares for all children in the same way you care for your own children, maybe even more.
Dalton was not a "criminal suspect" as the writer calls him but rather a convicted criminal and further, a criminal on probabtion. Also, he was on probabtion far what? You guessed it, "kiddie porn".
Let's please try not to disseminate inaccurate information to support our own agendas.
RE: Kiddie Porn and the Weird I remember seeing a large paperback book in the mid 1970s titled "Show Me" by a Will McBride featuring stunning photos of blond children naked, one of a boy of 11 or so with an erection with a beautiful young blond girl just inches away admiring it. This was in a mainstream bookstore in a beach town. This must be a banned book in the last twenty years! I am a married healthy man with a young wife of 35 with a healthy sex life. I know there are men out there who are obsessed with teenage girls and as a former patron of nudist resorts, I have seen many young girls with beautiful bodies who are beginning to notice older men ogling them. I was often aroused and I had sex relations with a woman of 22 once who looked 17 or so. Men who prey on underage girls are predators, felons who belong in prison after conviction, I think. They are sick, just as fire bugs, skyjackers of airliners (Fly me to Havana) and the weirdos who go after girls in the chat rooms on the Web are weirdos. Rapists are off the edge of the male species, as far as I am concerned. Go to any college campus and see many young women showing off a lot of skin and cleavage with push up bras. Yes, we watch a porno video sometimes, and my wife often tells me during foreplay how aroused I get thinking about a hot young woman applying lotion to her girlfriends firm round ass cheeks. I then imagine me going over with a semi offering to help, as I offer cold beer and a joint. I get a swat for being so bold!
Interesting arguments, but more scaremongering than serious criticism. And that argument that fantasies prevent actual occurences is just such a load of bull!
And well, if all this is genetic, let's put more money into genetic research and cure all these weirdos once and for all!
The word Pedophile which has been so quickly taken up by the prosecutors, scaremongers and sensible people alike does not, to me, describe the horror of this crime. It implies someone who loves children. It was taken up by the PIE ring as a Psychobabble excuse. It also gives stupid people the idea of harrassing pedo-anything (!). There is a proper word with no 'phile' to it that used to be used that word is pederast.
"a man named Brian Dalton was put in prison for writing down his sexual fantasies. He'd written them in a secret journal. There was no evidence that he'd acted them out. He'd never even shown them to another person. Dalton was already in trouble with the police, on probation for possessing obscene images of children; "
It is one thing to have a private fantasy written in a journal to yourself...It is another to be in possesion of obscene images of children. Regardless of his fantasies, his intentions towards children are clear .
Personally, I feel he crossed the line with his fantasy- but the images he has speak for themselves. Absolutely revolting to think that you can justify his sick fantasies because there is no evidence that he has actually acted upon them. I am no authority on "right and wrong" but come on, using freedom of speech to back up this individuals thoughts (and lets not forget his collection of images) is a little different from fictional literature.
He was charged for the images and thats fair enough - it's a crime, but for writing fiction in a private diary he got arrested!
Where doy uo draw the line? Are people who have written murder novels going to be arrested now? What they are writing about is just as illegal as what Daltons writings were about. This is a clear case of discrimination against a pedophile!
And to "RDP" - Think of Pedofiles like homosexuals.. Can you cure a homosexual? no! And the same goes for pedofiles. Its just another sexuality which most people know nothing about and confuse it with people who commit crimes involving children.
If you're a gay man does it mean you are going to kill and rape men? Of course it doesn't - and the same goes for pedophiles. Because you love children doesn't mean you want to rape them or hack them up or anything sick like that.
While I don't assign myself to any particular view, I do believe that there are few crimes deserving a more serious punishment than destroying the youth of a child. Number one, Mr. Dalton is already a sex offender and therefore should probably not be on the streets in the first place. Number two, Mr. Dalton did not just think it, he wrote it down and a word can be just as powerful a stimulus as a picture when you're talking about a person who obviously has extremely poor impulse control. Lastly, "did we not learn anything from Watergate?". If a permanent record can bring down a U.S. President then surely a private citizen is folly. DO NOT!!! I repeat do not commit anything that looks like criminal behavior or intent to permanent record, especially if you're on parole. If you do and you get caught then in my book you are a world-class dumbass. Do I think he deserves to be back in prison? Absolutely. If you stick your foot in a bear trap, don't be surprised if you get snapped.
Audiophile = an ardent admirer of audio and music reproduction
Bibliophile = an ardent admirer of books
Russophile = an ardent admirer of all things Russian
Pedophile = the lowest form of scum on the earth.
For some reason that doesn't seem fair, perhaps there needs to be a new definition. To my mind all parents -must- be pedophiles (after all they must love their children), but no-one should ever be allowed to be a child sexual molestor.
But that really isn't the arguement here. Was is right for the court to prosecute a man for something that he wrote despite its extremely private nature, and what does it mean for legitimate fiction and even for factual reporting?
I believe that we must trust that the court was capable of interpreting the scope of its findings based upon the spirit intended by the writings. If this is the case then our worries about people like Nabakov who write titilating stories about sex with minors should be moot, since the spirit of those stories is an exploration of the roots of our own sexuality and an unearthing of thoughts and feelings that may surprise us, or at least cause us to think a little more critically.
In that vein we must also think that material like this written solely as an aid to controlling socially unaccapetable behaviour, as a kind of therapy if you will. Those authors should also be allowed protection from prosecution.
But when stories like these are written soley for pandering to the degraded sexual frothings of individuals that would harm our children, then those people must be dealt with in as harsh a manner as possible. In this case the perpetrator was not only a convict on parole, but he was on parole for perpetrating crimes not so unlike those he described, surely the court felt that imagining such atrocities would only be the first step for this individual.
I went through years of physical and mental abuse that United States citizens don't consider to be
criminal in any way. Where are the people who want to go and kick the butts of MY abusers? Not
only that, if I go and kick their butts myself, I go to jail. If someone had taken pictures of me being
"sexually abused", not only would I not consider that a problem now, those would probably have been
happy times by contrast.
Bet Dalton's therapist is doing some ducking and covering right now. Keeping a journal is something
that is very standard. Pyschologists request that but don't expect very many of their patients to
actually do it. Are they crazy? I certain wouldn't have wanted my mother to read anything I wrote
as part of my "therapy." I was there because my mother demanded it. My therapist wanted me to
write things down. If I had not self-censored what little I did write, my mother would have made me
eat every page and screamed at me for hours, building up more and more psychotic rage until either
she released it in an act of violence or she went out and had sex with one of her drunken boyfriends.
There is abuse and exploitation of children hidden within the crusade against child pornography, as
there is abuse and exploitation of children hidden within the measures that are taken to attempt to
prevent school shootings, and abuse and exploitation by the usual practice of psychotherapy of
children. It is so bad that when people express concern that children are being abused by these
measures, they are accused of being pedophiles, which may be true, but the term pedophile is wrongly
used to label those who abuse children. If you want a term that covers abuse, the term "pedosadist" works for me. It doesn't work for a lot of people because if they had to look at the violence without the overt sexual behavior, pedosadist would cover most of the people who think they are part of polite society.
No, I don't think sex is inherently painful, abusive, or sadistic. The concern should be the actual pain, the actual abuse, and the actual harm. I suppose some are going to call me a pedophile now because it actually matters to me if children are hurt or unhappy, and their thoughts and feelings matter to me. Obviously caring about what children think or feel makes me a sadistic sexual pervert, right?
isn't it nice to know that words scribbled in a private notebook can get you arrested? god bless america.
I still think that Brian Dalton's journal is part of his "therapy" and his "therapist" is refusing to own up to it.
I know little of the case mentioned (I'm from the UK) but your arguement in favour of "free thought" is a strong one - especially in citing the use of literature such as "Lolita". However, I must point out something that the courts probably took into account - the writer of the fantasy was a convicted child-molester; as such he was proven, in the past, to have no inhibitions concerning sexual abuse of children. Agreed that there is a difference between fantasy and reality (a difference that is fragile with some disturbed personalities), perhaps the authorities were erring on the side of caution? After all, they'd be the first to suffer from accusations of "not doing enough after seeing clear signs" of potential re-offence.
Then again, there is a problem with locking people up for crimes they "might" commit as opposed to crimes committed. This is not an easy moral issue!
One of the things I have learned while searching for Brian Dalton's story on the Internet is that the reporters haven't researched the case very carefully. It isn't always clear exactly what crime he was convicted of in 1998. It may have been downloading the pornography that is freely available on the Internet and Usenet. I don't know which pictures. There are some that are out all the time that don't look like child pornography, aren't child pornography, but an ambitious prosecutor can deceive jurors into convicting on child pornography charges. Also, it is tragic that the whole thing has deceived Brian Dalton's parents into thinking that Brian is a danger to society and that it is a good idea to let the justice system attempt to rehabilitate him.
Well, if I remember federal law correctly, the kiddie porn is one of the easiest laws to violate if you really wanted to. If I had any artistic abilities, I could draw two middle aged adults in sexual situations, and that is considered smut at worse...if I tried to do it with somewhat of an unusual spin, it could be considered art. However, if instead of adults, I drew two 12 year olds in it, I have just created a violation of federal law. I think kiddie porn is the only thing this can work for too, which is odd and unique in and of itself.
In some ways, I do agree with the law...at what point does fantasy become reality to someone. If someone draws one picture of children in sexual situations? Or of someone has drawn over every square inch in the walls of their bedroom...almost making a shrine to the god of kiddie porn (assuming such a god would exist of course). We live in a society that is so overprotective of children we have to stop a crime before it is one when it relates to this. However we won't be so overprotective as to give extra money for head start, school lunches, or any of the hundreds of other programs to aid children who live in impovershed conditions. It's odd how we can coddle, yet at the same time, deny.
But getting back to the topic at hand, like I stated before, child porn is a unique case. Can anyone even answer why it is wrong? We don't really have a good reason WHY it's wrong, we all just know it is as moral beings. I don't think there will ever be a clear cut answer when it comes to this topic, I just don't want the extremes to be taken. I don't want to see my parents accused of being child pornographers because they took a picture of me when I was a kid running around naked in my dad's cowboy boots. They took it because it was just too funny and wanted to tease me about it for the rest of my adult life, nothing sexual is attached to the photo, but it's important to remember that distinction.
We live in a society that jumps to extremes. That over argues a topic before we truly study all aspects and consiquences. It's unfortunate, but we sure do love to start trouble. Perhaps the aim should not be at those who are obsessed with child porn, perhaps the media in this country should have a little more tact before turning 16 year old children into sex symbols of the generation. Hell, what male alive thought it was gross to look at Britney Spears before she turned 18? Let kids be kids, don't make them be glamorous, sexy, or even grown-up. If we did that, maybe more problems would be solved than just the topic at hand?
After reading this piece I must say that I am torn between the laws of my country and some rights of human beings to express themselves. As a mother of two small children I would hate for a monster like that to rape and torture my children. Being as I was raped at age 14 and molested by a family member when I was 5 I know the pain that goes along with it. But I have pictures of my daughters in all states of undress and does that make me a pervert? If socail services showed up at my house they would find my kids running around in nothing but underware. My kids don't keep clothes on. And should I not take pictures of my daughters because the refuse to wear clothes? I recently took a picture of my 2 year old wearing nothing but a pair of socks and work boots, a picture of her butt, is that pornography? I think there is always going to be a fine line between what is acceptable and what isn't. And I think our justice system needs to be augments to see that grey area.
I've given "kiddie porn" a chance and found it revolting. I don't know how the Dalton case turned out, but I wonder how many cops are reading my above confession and want to deprogram me. In any case, you have written a well worded and very fair article. Fun to read, too! Thanx!
thought police scary huh?
thought police scary huh?
Anyone who writes down such fantasys about kids, is on the verge of doing it. And, anyone who harbors such desires is seriously mentally ill, and borderline psyco. The more he writes, the hotter he gets for those little ones. He could slip from reality into a world where he does what he wants to do. And another child vanishes into that world he and other sickies create, that world of terror and pain. People who want to get off on inflicting violence and pain on the helpless and vulnerable should not be allowed to live at all. If this is one way to get rid of them, I'm all for it. A person like that feeds their sexual urges fuel when they think about, and write about these awful things they want to do. They are not saveable because they are too twisted, and it's too late. If there is any decency in them at all, any part of them that knows what they really are, they should committ suicide and go to a place where they can find peace. You are comparing apples and oranges. Something is missing, twisted, rotted in their makup, and if a person like this was damaged in his own babyhood, or if he was born this way, he simply should stop existing. Period.
A thought-provoking article. As usual, the US government's response to a perceived threat is worse than the original problem.
However, there is a problem not addressed here. What about all the men and women who enjoy child porn? They undoubtedly form a significant minority, at least as large as that of homosexual men and women. Should they all be prosecuted and imprisoned?
As recent arrests prove, many of these people are otherwise highly-valuable members of the community who have not done anything harmful with any child. Conviction for this offence means the end of everything, permanently, and they contribute virtually nothing until they die. Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot?
Then there is the sheer hypocrisy. Children are horrendously exploited in many countries to produce cheap goods and services for us. We refuse to pay the extra for fairly-traded goods - then point the finger at the man who likes a picture of a nude child.
Vast numbers of parents lazily give their kids fast food, leading to obesity-diabetes-heart-disease-early death. They smoke at home, giving their kids a role model of a smoker.
I think we have our priorities wrong, just to make us feel good.
How can you possibly compare Nabokovs Lolita to the journal of a man who clearly has a desire to molest and torture children? Nabkovs novel was a work of fiction..a story, it wasn't a diary...it wasn't about a personal desire to rape children. It was obviously written for shock value.
The man in question most likely would have abused a child, do you really think a man that wants to have sex with a child is stable enough to keep his sick urges under control? I don't think so, he's just not right in the head....what kind of person sits around and fantasizes about torturing an innocent child?
Personally I think anyone who posesses sexually explicit pics of children should be put away, they are useless & dangerous members of society. Same goes for men/women who get into the snuff films or rape depictions....they are sick fucks and we don't need em.
You people are sick. Do you honestly believe that a Pedophile is some kind of insane monster, incapable of normal social interaction, and desperate to rape and torture the first kid they see? A pedofile is a person, not a monster. They have been born like it - it isn't a choice they willingly make and given the choice I'm sure they would rather have more "normal" sexual tendancies. Problem is, they don't - they cannot stop themselves from *liking* children and there is nothing you will ever be able to do about it. Before everyone starts posting angry replies to this, I'm not saying that children should be sexually abused - far from it. I'm saying that pedofiles are normal members of society and should be treated so. If a pedophile sexually abuses a child then send them to prison, but please stop suggesting that a person should be treated more harshly for child offences than for other offences. I believe that any pedophile can be around children, and have children of their own without even thinking of sexually abusing them.
We know in all cases that the thought precede the crime, and that these musings and writings are conducted in secrecy because they are rightfully shameful, despite protests to the contrary. And while we cannot justfy criminalizing even the basest intellect, we can observe the trend to "think as we live", where our inability to direct the will naturally leads us to rationalize the sin. What are the consequences of this behavior to the individual and society? Bet you won't find the words "goodness or truth" used in any response to that question, and if those words are meaningless or relative, then you have answered the question: chaos. Of course society should and does generally condemn that conduct, public and private, just as we condemn rape, public and private. We punish the actions, not the thoughts.
i don
A scandalous account, which I'm afraid waxes lyrical. Children are society's possessions and do society's bidding. Did Inga enjoy her experiences?
What is 'natural'?
It seems to me that a lot of people are making a fuss about 'what goes on' without looking a viable solutions to the issues at and the practicality of those 'issues'.
Is child porn wrong or the production of child porn wrong?
Considering it has been theorised that the FBI are one of the large distributers of this genre, through newgroups (a method of entrapment and a way of justifying their massive taxpayers bankroll). Surely wouldn't it be more sensible to provide an amnesty to all 'would be' perverts, that, providing no new Child Porn would be produced, no more children molested, all old child porn would be made freely available. Or do the crusaders believe anyone who is exposed to this, becomes infected with immediate transcendence to Paedophilia?
Sad, I work with children who has been abused by this form of abuse. If a child is naked and a picture is taken I think it's wrong. Some parents think it alright
"sad is that day"
Weeping lee who cares
H.Lee,BA- social services
BBA, Bach.of business administration
i think what you are thinking is none of my business.
What do you think?
Now you say something