No Jail for Guelph Child Porn Girl

[Ontario Loyalist]

I don't recall ever hearing about a girl being charged or convicted for possessing child pornography. Given what we know about male predators, how is it that they think that a female would be much different and can be rehabilitated. Does she not pose more of a danger considering that society does not view teen girls as being potential sex predators (although I'm sure some would suggest otherwise)?

http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/378451

[Argus]

I don't recall ever hearing about a girl being charged or convicted for possessing child pornography. Given what we know about male predators, how is it that they think that a female would be much different and can be rehabilitated. Does she not pose more of a danger considering that society does not view teen girls as being potential sex predators (although I'm sure some would suggest otherwise)?

http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/378451

I don't believe people who look at pictures constitute predators. No scientifically valid study ever made has managed to link the consumption or viewing of pornographic images, however vile, with actual violence against women or children. And believe me the religious right in the US in particular has really tried. This is simply a case of an adolescent curious about sex looking at a lot of different pictures and videos on the internet. Big flipping deal. When I was younger, and the internet was younger still, I used to visit a lot of bizarre sites, including those which showed gruesome pictures of deaths and wierd sex with wierd people. I don't recall ever hearing about a site which showed kids having sex, but if I had I'd probably have taken a look out of simple curiosity.

The judge's statement "People who access these pictures or videos support . . . and assist the people who are making these videos and taking the pictures." shows not only a profound ignorance of human sexuality but also an abscence of logic and a lack of knowledge regarding child pornography and it's motivations. Unsurprising, really, as this mirrors the massive ignorance and emotionalism among Canadians in general.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I don't know, Argus, somebody could come along and possibly get the wrong impression from your post; whatever the case, this girl down loaded hundreds of images and a score of videos of child pornography, images of very young children engaged in sex acts, because she is, and I quote: "sexually attracted to young girls". That's not good nor normal, and you can't tell me that this person is a risk for becoming--if not already--a predator. And we also know that the LBGT community has elements in it that condone and advocate pederasty through "literature" like The Vagina Monologues. Please don't make excuses for her.

[moderateamericain]

I don't know, Argus, somebody could come along and possibly get the wrong impression from your post; whatever the case, this girl down loaded hundreds of images and a score of videos of child pornography, images of very young children engaged in sex acts, because she is, and I quote: "sexually attracted to young girls". That's not good nor normal, and you can't tell me that this person is a risk for becoming--if not already--a predator. And we also know that the LBGT community has elements in it that condone and advocate pederasty through "literature" like The Vagina Monologues. Please don't make excuses for her.

The danger is not in the act of viewing child porn (even if its disgusting and personally i think people who do are mentally fucked up), the danger is in people thinking that there is a market for it and engaging children in pictures and videos.

[Argus]

I don't know, Argus, somebody could come along and possibly get the wrong impression from your post;

What, that I'm smart and well-read? I can see how that would frighten a guy like you.

whatever the case, this girl down loaded hundreds of images and a score of videos of child pornography, images of very young children engaged in sex acts, because she is, and I quote: "sexually attracted to young girls". That's not good nor normal,

She IS a young girl. As to whether it's normal I suppose that would depend on what she meant by "young girls". It's certainly not normal for her to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent girls, I'll grant you that. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to have her see a shrink if that is the case. However, the term "child pornography" is so broad that pictures and videos of girls her own age, or even a couple of years older would more than qualify, so I'm reluctant to condemn her without knowing what the "library" if you will, largely consisted of. Was there a thouand pictures of teenage girls, and two or three "freak" videos of younger girls? Dunno.

and you can't tell me that this person is a risk for becoming--if not already--a predator.

I've seen a number of these child porn cases now, and virtually every single one is an otherwise law-abiding citizen who had never, so far as the authorities were able to determine, made any effort to engage in immoral activities with a child. But in any event, she harmed no one, and I don't think we can put someone in jail because we don't like their sexual fantasies and believe they might possibly one day act on them.

And if I must say it, I do find such material to be disgusting, and feel it should be banned. I do not feel that mere posession of it, unless you have actually contributed to the assault on the child in some way such as encouraging it or paying for the video, should be a criminal matter.

[Argus]

The danger is not in the act of viewing child porn (even if its disgusting and personally i think people who do are mentally fucked up), the danger is in people thinking that there is a market for it and engaging children in pictures and videos.

As far as I'm aware child porn comes in three distinct categories.

1. Professionally made for sale decades ago when such stuff was legal.

2. Kids (teenagers) taking pics and videos of themselves.

3. The byproducts of some pervert molesting a child and taking images as souvenirs.

I would say that 95%, from what I've read of police studies, falls under the first two categories.

As someone who was a marketing manager in a previous life I can tell you that there is simply no likelihood of succesfully marketing kiddy porn (Success defined as making money and not being imprisoned). The market is too narrow, and too underground, and the danger is far too high compared to more profitable and safer material.

There is always the oddball who wants to brag to his internet buddies and molests a child for that purpose, but in every such case I've heard of the oddball was molesting children anyway.

My position has always been that focusing on the downloaders of porn is a massive and almost criminal waste of resources which ought to be focused on the people who actually molest children.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Argus

[Ontario Loyalist]

The danger is not in the act of viewing child porn (even if its disgusting and personally i think people who do are mentally fucked up), the danger is in people thinking that there is a market for it and engaging children in pictures and videos.

Yes, there is a danger in it; first off, from a purely moral perspective; secondly, the fact that viewing will in a number of cases morph into producing.

[Ontario Loyalist]

What, that I'm smart and well-read? I can see how that would frighten a guy like you.

Oh, that's right; I've read your learned posts on how Mulroney wasn't responsible for the fiscal disaster that Martin had to clean up.

She IS a young girl. As to whether it's normal I suppose that would depend on what she meant by "young girls". It's certainly not normal for her to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent girls, I'll grant you that. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to have her see a shrink if that is the case. However, the term "child pornography" is so broad that pictures and videos of girls her own age, or even a couple of years older would more than qualify, so I'm reluctant to condemn her without knowing what the "library" if you will, largely consisted of. Was there a thouand pictures of teenage girls, and two or three "freak" videos of younger girls? Dunno.

The article states that girls as young as SEVEN were engaged in a "full range of sex acts" in these pics/vids.

I've seen a number of these child porn cases now, and virtually every single one is an otherwise law-abiding citizen who had never, so far as the authorities were able to determine, made any effort to engage in immoral activities with a child. But in any event, she harmed no one, and I don't think we can put someone in jail because we don't like their sexual fantasies and believe they might possibly one day act on them.

How do you know she didn't harm anyone???? Please, possessing this kind of material is a clear indicator that the possibility exists that she has victimized or will victimized.

And if I must say it, I do find such material to be disgusting, and feel it should be banned. I do not feel that mere posession of it, unless you have actually contributed to the assault on the child in some way such as encouraging it or paying for the video, should be a criminal matter.

Demand creates supply. Are many of these videos and pics not produced by individuals and then "shared"?

Yes, thank you for clearly stating your opinion of this kind of material.

[BC_chick]

The article didn't mention anything about the judge's reason for his decision, but I'm thinking it was probably more to do with the fact that she's 16 than it does because of her gender. I've heard of 16 y.o. males going to jail for sexually assaulting minors, but not for possessing child porn.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not one of the people you mention who might argue that women can't be sexual predators.

[Adelle]

Personally, I have always believed that if a person can consent to sexual activity then they should be able to consent to sexual display or sexual performance - in Canada consent begins at age 12. However, under present law, if this girl had a personal photo or video record of her lovers (male or female) and her engaged in sex then that constitutes child porn if they were under 18 at the time. A judge may or may not take intent into account and some people try to include simple nudity even though the law clearly states that there must be sexual content.

<The images depicted children as young as six or seven engaged in "a full range of sexual activity," court heard.>

Definitely under the AoC. I’m not saying that persons that age, girls at least, can’t enjoy sexual activity - I certainly enjoyed it at age 9 and girls can achieve orgasm at that age - but the pubic is simply not willing to believe that a person that age would be willing to engage in sexual display. Terms like "brainwashing", "grooming", "coaching" and such like tend to be used. Somewhere, there has to be an adult involved, like we could not possibly make a decision like that, doing something that really feels good, on our own. Not sure why she would find someone half her age sexually appealing, but the story does't say how long she has been collecting. Then again, a 32 yo could find this 16 yo sexually appealing, and be completely legal as long as there was no visual record involved.

Notice that the father was the one that was immediately arrested. Good thing the daughter loved him enough to fess-up or, deny it as he might, he'd be the one fired, divorced, ostracized and jailed.

<"This isn't about sex," the judge said. "This is about abuse.">

This is an interesting statement since porn is, by definition, about sex, unless you concede that all pornography, regardless of age, in abusive. Some people do think that way. I won't get into moral issues - morality is in the eye of the beholder.

<The girl was put on probation for two years, during which she must not use a computer except for school work, not be alone with anyone under 14 and take counselling.>

Also interesting, she can not be alone with anyone she can not legally have sex with - as per the newest version of our sexual consent laws.

Is she guilty - yes. Did the judge make the right call given the present laws - yes, in my opinion. She should not be criminalized for simple sexual curiosity combined with societies mania regarding child sexuality.

-> You are now free to heap abuse <-

Edited September 13, 2008 by Adelle

[Argus]

Yes, there is a danger in it; first off, from a purely moral perspective; secondly, the fact that viewing will in a number of cases morph into producing.

We are not in the business of punishing people for morals offenses, for dirty thoughts as it were, or dirty fantasies. As for the "danger" of viewing turning into doing, all the scientific studies conducted say otherwise.

[Argus]

Oh, that's right; I've read your learned posts on how Mulroney wasn't responsible for the fiscal disaster that Martin had to clean up.

Yes, it's called making statements based on fact not emotion. You should give it a try some day.

The article states that girls as young as SEVEN were engaged in a "full range of sex acts" in these pics/vids.

Yes, but not how many. As I suggested above, was that the bulk of the pictures/videos she collected, or a tiny percentage? It does make a difference, I think, in assessing her actual interests and intents. There was a child porn case last year in which the media report stated the defendant had over ten thousand pictures and videos, some of which featured children etc. etc. It emerged at the trial that there were exactly four images which the police said was child porn. That is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

How do you know she didn't harm anyone???? Please, possessing this kind of material is a clear indicator that the possibility exists that she has victimized or will victimized.

I'm assuming the police interviewed her, her family, and anyone who she associated with, most especially underage kids, quite thoroughly, and did their very best to determine if she or anyone else had been molested. Since the article said nothing about this I'll have to take it as "no".

And possessing this material is no indication of anything but where her sexual fantasies lie. You might as well say that if a man has sexually explicit images of a woman this indicates the clear possibility he will victimize one. Well duh. Yet no correlation between sexual violence and the consumption of pornographic materials has ever been successfully demonstrated, despite repeated efforts to do so.

Demand creates supply. Are many of these videos and pics not produced by individuals and then "shared"?

The demand exists for sex with children, and there is a demand for viewing images of young children. But the link between the two is not as clear cut as you might think. Do you actually believe anyone is going to pick out a child and molest that child simply so they can put the images on the internet? It just doesn't happen that way. The images are merely souvenirs, or, if you will, witness to the crime being committed. Absent the images, the crime itself would still exist. Because the real motivation is not to propagate images but to have sex with the child. That is why we should be aiming resources at that, and not at people who download images.

[CANADIEN]

People posessing child porn are in posession of the product of a crime. That makes them criminals, and they should be treated as such. Plus, they contribute to and encourage secual abuse of children.

[Argus]

People posessing child porn are in posession of the product of a crime. That makes them criminals, and they should be treated as such. Plus, they contribute to and encourage secual abuse of children.

Yes, that's the unthinking knee-jerk response. Thanks for that.

Tell me, all those videos we see on TV of various crimes in progress, you know the kind on shows like Cops or World's Wildest Police Videos or World's Most Shocking Videos, those things that tens of millions of people watch every day - are those products of crime, and should everyone who tapes them be held liable for committing whatever crime those videos depict? Do those videos contribute to the crimes?

On another subject, does watching pornography contribute to the sexual abuse of women?

For that matter, let's be worldly here: Does watching gay porn contribute to gays sexually abusing each other? (no comedians here please)

[CANADIEN]

Yes, that's the unthinking knee-jerk response. Thanks for that.

Tell me, all those videos we see on TV of various crimes in progress, you know the kind on shows like Cops or World's Wildest Police Videos or World's Most Shocking Videos, those things that tens of millions of people watch every day - are those products of crime, and should everyone who tapes them be held liable for committing whatever crime those videos depict? Do those videos contribute to the crimes?

On another subject, does watching pornography contribute to the sexual abuse of women?

For that matter, let's be worldly here: Does watching gay porn contribute to gays sexually abusing each other? (no comedians here please)

And here's the guy who believes slavery is a good thing striking again. :lol:

As much as I dislike cops show, arrest of criminals is not a crime. Abuse of children is, and child porn is a direct product of that crime. And yes, those whoooo buy and view these products are encouraring their makes to keep producing them and keep abusing children.

[Argus]

And here's the guy who believes slavery is a good thing striking again. :lol:

An interesting facet of the internet is the most humourless people seem to like to use terms like "lol" a lot.

As much as I dislike cops show, arrest of criminals is not a crime.

We're not talking about "arrest of criminals" so stop squirming. We're talking about videos which clearly show crimes in progress, often from the security videos of stores, or from people's video tapes, crimes of violence including robbery, assault, and sometimes even murder. How is that different from the videos of criminal sexual behaviour? Why is it such a horrible thing to watch one, so horrible you should go to jail, but so acceptable to watch the other it's on mainstream television?

Abuse of children is, and child porn is a direct product of that crime

.

Well, no, videos are not a "product" of a crime, but a witness to it. When a guy robs a store and shoots the cashier the money he takes is a product of the crime, but the security video is not. To put it another way, one of the most famous photos in history is that of the Chief of the Saigon police executing a man while reporters looked on. Are you suggesting the photo was "the product of the crime" and that everyone who looks at it should be arrested?

And yes, those whoooo buy and view these products are encouraring their makes to keep producing them and keep abusing children.

But in virtually every case I'm aware of there was no purchase involved. Most such material was simply downloaded from a variety of P2P sources with no contact at all between the actual downloader and the person who originally took the video or picture - perhaps decades earlier.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Yes, it's called making statements based on fact not emotion. You should give it a try some day.

Yes, but not how many.

As I've stated before, I posted information disproving your supposed facts, which yoy totally ignored. So unless you do the same, please stop acting like a complete fucking retard.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I don't recall ever hearing about a girl being charged or convicted for possessing child pornography. Given what we know about male predators, how is it that they think that a female would be much different and can be rehabilitated. Does she not pose more of a danger considering that society does not view teen girls as being potential sex predators (although I'm sure some would suggest otherwise)?

I don't believe it was the girl... I think she was protecting her father...

[Ontario Loyalist]

I don't believe it was the girl... I think she was protecting her father...

I doubt that.

[Adelle]

I don't believe it was the girl... I think she was protecting her father...

Notice that the father was the one that was immediately arrested. Good thing the daughter loved him enough to fess-up or, deny it as he might, he'd be the one fired, divorced, ostracized and jailed.

Ah, yup. We know he's guilty, we just can't prove it. It is so easy in our society to blame the nearest male - father, uncle, brother, whatever. In the end, it is his fault anyway as the parent - he didn't raise her right, he obviously empowered her, he should have known. I don't think that she should get jail and a sex offender status, as she would in the USA, but let put the responsibility were it should be - the one who had the love of family and strength of character to stand up and admit to collecting taboo, forbidden and illegal material. She can have any lover as young as 12 (depending on her age) but no lower and she CAN NOT make a video record of their lovemaking - dumb as that sounds - and she CAN NOT possess a visual record of another's sexual activities if they are under 18. Until that law is changed, to do other wise has risk. You have to decide from there.

[Argus]

As I've stated before, I posted information disproving your supposed facts, which yoy totally ignored. So unless you do the same, please stop acting like a complete fucking retard.

All you posted was the original news report. How does that disprove any of my "supposed facts"? Perhaps you'd like to list the supposed facts I gave and show me how they were disproved by your newspaper report? Or do you even know what you're talking about?

[Rue]

I don't believe people who look at pictures constitute predators. No scientifically valid study ever made has managed to link the consumption or viewing of pornographic images, however vile, with actual violence against women or children.

No argus there are studies that do link the two. I provide a quote from the following from this web site;

http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newslette...3_2004.htmatbut before I do that refer you to the following web-sites as well;

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-...2000/rr00_5.pdf

http://www.cybercollege.com/port/sexrsh.htm

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/pornsEffect...es-Link-RWP.pdf

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/p...hy_rape_jp.html

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/p...rphy_ovrvw.html

http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yo...Pornography.pdf

" The Statistics

Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.9

In a 2000 study issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 76% of offenders convicted of internet-related crimes against children admitted to contact sex crimes with children previously undetected by law enforcement and had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each.10 Furthermore, reports by state-based Internet Crimes against Children (ICAC) task forces confirm the positive correlation between the possession of child pornography and the commission of crimes against children, through its law enforcement and fieldwork.11 For instance, the Pennsylvania-based ICAC task force reported that 51% of individuals arrested for pornography-related offenses were also determined to be actively molesting children or to have molested in the past. In Dallas, the ICAC task force found that 32% of offenders arrested over the course of one year for child pornography offenses were also molesting children or had molested in the past.12 In light of the documented link between individuals who view child pornography and individuals who actually molest children, each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation. "

Argus not all people who posess child pornography have acted out their fantasies. But I can tell you every pedophile I have encountered uses child pornography as a way to network with other pedophiles to gain access to children. Child pronography also finances international syndicates who trade women and children as sex slaves and incite pedophiles who might not otherwise have opportunity and access to go on to committing sex crimes precisely because the child porno network tells them where to go and makes them feel since others are doing it as well, its socially acceptable.

So sorry I think you are just dead wrong.

As for whether this woman has acted out anything and engaged in sexual exploitation of children I do not know the full story. She could be manipulated and the front for someone else and is pleasing someone else by maintaining this site for them. She may in fact be a pedophile herself. It is possible that women can be pedophiles.

It is not as usual and the reason why this is, although it is by no means a definitive explanation is probably because testosterone is linked to pedophilia and testosterone of course is more prevalent in men. It could also be certain types of pedophilia are as a result of bio-chemical imbalances more likely to happen in the male then female gender because of certain chromosones or the way the frontal lobe structure differs. They just do not know for sure and are looking in to it.

Pedophiles who strictly become that way because of lifestyle choice and have no bio-chemical predisposition to it are very unusual. Most pedophiles have a tell tale craving in their sex drive that can not be controlled suggesting the obessive compulsive and addictive traits associated with it are bio-chemical.

If it was strictly learned behaviour, behaviour modification would prove beneficial but what we do know is behaviour modification doesn't seem to work. In fact the only thing that seems to work is a common sense one; removing the opportunity and access to children.

Every pedophile I encountered in the court system used child pornography as a way to try alleviate their tension through masterbation which I suppose could be argued will prevent some of them from acting out their impulses, but no common sense tells us that even a pedophile who can masterbate and alleviate their sex drive, will not turn down the opportunity if it comes about and he has unrestricted access.

We also know pedophiles feel vindicated and empowered by the internet and feel it legitimizes their right to have sex with children and assist others do the same.

[Argus]

No argus there are studies that do link the two. I provide a quote from the following from this web site;

http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newslette...3_2004.htmatbut before I do that refer you to the following web-sites as well;

Broken link. Not helpful

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-...2000/rr00_5.pdf

This is a study of the relationship convicted sex offenders had with porn and child porn and even it does not even begin to suggest that the consumption motivated the crimes.

http://www.cybercollege.com/port/sexrsh.htm

Those who advocate the censorship of sexual material have repeatedly enlisted the help of researchers to prove a link between sexual materials—even hard-core pornography—and sexual crime. The "link" that has been established has rested much more on religious and political thinking than on objective research data.

Doesn't exactly support your views.

I don't need any nonsense from "Morality in Media" thanks. Leave the bible thumpers out of this. I know what they think of porn.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/p...hy_rape_jp.html

Basically seems to agree with me, and points out that while the proliferation of violent porn has increased in Japan actual sex crimes have decreased.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf

I'm not going to read a 168 page report, thanks. Perhaps you'd care to summarize?

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/p...rphy_ovrvw.html

Did you even read any of your own cites?

The concern that countries allowing pornography and liberal anti-obscenity laws would show increased sex crime rates due to modeling or that children or adolescents in particular would be negatively vulnerable to and receptive to such models or that society would be otherwise adversely effected is not supported by evidence.

http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yo...Pornography.pdf

" The Statistics

Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.6 From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7

This last is the kind of scaremongering nonsense used by a variety of agencies largely to push their 'scary-scary' agenda - and not coincidentally, to get more money for their agencies to combat it. No actual documention or studies are cited which can be refuted by researchers. Instead the author - who remains anonymous, of this unnamed paper cites a "ray smith" from the postal service, as having provided them the figures. Huh? I can cite all many of large scale studies conducted by scientific researchers into this which go completely counter to the statement above. In fact, a number of such studies are listed in the cites above which you apparently didn't read. But those are real studies which are documented and which can be examined for the reliability of their data.

However, if you go on the web looking for someone to say that reading child porn leads to child molesting you will inevitably come to Ray Smith, cited over and over again on a variety of sites. Smith has never, so far as I'm aware, published any documentation to support his claim. However, it is known the US Postal Service does not target people at random for its stings. It targets known sex offenders. So it's hardly a shock if we learn that many of those it then catches up are people who have molested children.

In a 2000 study issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 76% of offenders convicted of internet-related crimes against children admitted to contact sex crimes with children previously undetected by law enforcement and had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each.

Again, who did the study? What were their qualifications? How were the offenders selected - other than them being in prison? We need to know these things before we can accept a claim which runs counter to established research.

10 Furthermore, reports by state-based Internet Crimes against Children (ICAC) task forces confirm the positive correlation between the possession of child pornography and the commission of crimes against children,

Oh I'm sure there's a correlation. But that doesn't imply causation. If you're a sex maniac out attacking women you almost certainly consume a lot of porn. That doesn't take a genius to figure out.

So sorry I think you are just dead wrong.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. It's just that there is no actual evidence to back up your belief, simply hysterical statements and often misguided exagerations by people who are not acredited researchers of any kind, with no provision of statistical evidence or factual documentation to back it up.

[Rue]

Agus you stated

"This is a study of the relationship convicted sex offenders had with porn and child porn and even it does not even begin to suggest that the consumption motivated the crimes."

It shows consumption fuels opportunity and access to pedophilia. That was the point and something you seem to keep denying.

You quote'

"Those who advocate the censorship of sexual material have repeatedly enlisted the help of researchers to prove a link between sexual materials—even hard-core pornography—and sexual crime. The "link" that has been established has rested much more on religious and political thinking than on objective research data."

and then stated;

"Doesn't exactly support your views."

I deliberately put it in Argus because what I have attempted to do is provide non religious non moral research but acknowledge the above is what is being argued. I am not someone who just cites things to support my arguements. I try cite many sides of the arguement. I am not someone who argues there is only one right arguement. I try show mine but compare it to others and then let people decide so they do not think I am a shrill.

You stated;

"I don't need any nonsense from "Morality in Media" thanks. Leave the bible thumpers out of this. I know what they think of porn."

Everyone knows I am no fundamentalist nor do I subscribe to fundamentalist religious approaches to sexual relationships but it is part of the dialogue and that is why I cited it, so people can compare.

You stated;

"Basically seems to agree with me, and points out that while the proliferation of violent porn has increased in Japan actual sex crimes have decreased."

Come on Argus read it. It says when opportunity and access to pedophilia is restricted crimes decrease. It is showing exactly what I am getting at. You have gone off on this arguement that people who watch children have sex on the internet can't be proven to have sex with children. What I have tried to show you is that is not the issue. Cause and effect by simply looking at whether it motivates pedophilia is not the issue which you have gone off on. Its opportunity and access to pedophila. If pornography can be shown to create opportunity and access to children, that is the issue.

You stated;

"I'm not going to read a 168 page report, thanks. Perhaps you'd care to summarize?"

That's exactly what the problem is Argus and a problem you would be the first to point out is the weakness in someone else's arguements-that we don't take the time to read-we prefer instead to limit ourselves to easy, quicker, black and white articles and things that do not require us to look at the grey of the issue.

Me I have read numerous reports from all sides of the equation and what the above report clearly documented is that child pornography on the internet cultivates and enhances opportunity and access to pedophilia activities - it provides networking for pedophiles to find children to exploit. It finances and funds organized crime directly linked to the sexual exploitation of children.

More importantly and you seem to have totally missed the point, who do you think are in these films? Midgets? Paid union actors?

"Did you even read any of your own cites?"

Funny you just admitted you don't but still argue against them which is not exactly credible. More to the point, in an effort to try be credible I didn't just provide cites that support my own views, and you seem to think that means I did not read them because I should only be quoting things that match my opinions. I am not just trying to present my opinions. I am trying to acknowledge there are many opinions and I tried to provide different opinions so people do not think I am only interested in my own.

Now you take this comment;

"The concern that countries allowing pornography and liberal anti-obscenity laws would show increased sex crime rates due to modeling or that children or adolescents in particular would be negatively vulnerable to and receptive to such models or that society would be otherwise adversely effected is not supported by evidence."

and then state;

"This last is the kind of scaremongering nonsense used by a variety of agencies largely to push their 'scary-scary' agenda - and not coincidentally, to get more money for their agencies to combat it. No actual documention or studies are cited which can be refuted by researchers."

Interesting. I provide you documentation and you say you didn't read it.

You stated;

Huh? I can cite all many of large scale studies conducted by scientific researchers into this which go completely counter to the statement above."

Please do. That is the point.

You stated;

" In fact, a number of such studies are listed in the cites above which you apparently didn't read. But those are real studies which are documented and which can be examined for the reliability of their data."

So list them so we can have an appropriate debate.

You stated;

" However, it is known the US Postal Service does not target people at random for its stings. It targets known sex offenders. So it's hardly a shock if we learn that many of those it then catches up are people who have molested children."

Actually you are wrong again. But hey why let that stop you.

You stated;

"Again, who did the study? What were their qualifications? How were the offenders selected - other than them being in prison? We need to know these things before we can accept a claim which runs counter to established research."

Argus probide the established research you keep referring to and I will do my best to provide research that proves it antiquated.

You stated;

"Oh I'm sure there's a correlation. But that doesn't imply causation."

The above comment Argus is what I am criticizing now. The issue when it comes to studying the relationship between child pronography and sex crimes is whether child pornography creates networks for pedophiles to meet each other and gain opportunity and access to children. Its whether it enables the financing of sex crimes. Most importantly and the most blatant and obvious thing you seem to be in complete denial of, to suggest child pornography does not cause pedophilia is absurd. To make this conclusion you pretend the children in these movies are not children.

You stated;

" If you're a sex maniac out attacking women you almost certainly consume a lot of porn. "

You now mix up a different kind of sexual behaviour with pedophila. First of all if someone is attacking women, its not pedophilia. Secondly what we do know is the usual psychiatric profile of a man who attacks a woman falls into many categories of personality disorders, some sexual, some not sexual at all. More importantly the man engaging in the violence may or may not get off on violent pornopgraphy and the violent pornography may or may not empower him to believe his violence is acceptanle. However the issue of opportunity and access to women to abuse them for an adult male is a completely different issue then when we talk of pedophilia and child pornography.

For me, you are now trying to compare apples to oranges thinking they are the same. They are not. Look snuff films where women are mutilated and killed can be the real thing. We now that. Movies of actual murders have been filmed. That is absolute bullshit. Me personally I believe pornography with adults is an entirely different issue but if it depicts real violence and murder that has to be criminalized and contained.

If consenting adults want to engage in sado-masochism that is one thing. They are into fetish behaviour and they use safe words and it is their business. However it becomes society's business if the people in the movies did not participate in them of their own free will and were properly paid and were not hurt. It becomes society's business if women are being mutilated or hurt because it can be shown such activity assisted a criminal engage in an act.

No I am not saying go out and censor adult pornography. However I am saying it has to be monitored and regulated to make sure it does not intentionally finance criminal activities.

You stated:

"That doesn't take a genius to figure out."

Then why do you keep missing the obvious point, an adult is not a child. A child can not form free consent. A child placed in a child porno tape is a victim of pedophilia.

You stated;

"You're entitled to believe whatever you want. It's just that there is no actual evidence to back up your belief, simply hysterical statements and often misguided exagerations by people who are not acredited researchers of any kind, with no provision of statistical evidence or factual documentation to back it up."

Again Argus what is hysterical about statingt he obvious- a child in a moving forced to engage in sex acts is a victim of pedophilia. How is that hysterical?

Argus I have sat in a room with dozens of pedophiles. Some of them use child pornography to masterbate and relieve their sexual tensions but it postpones the inevitable. Whether they go on to engage in actual pedophilia or not depends on opportunity and access.

Many of them start off using the porno sites to just masterbate. But the longer they are on them the more they find out how to network with other pedophiles, where to go on vacation. when they meet other pedophiles on chat lines to exchange pictures and information, it invariably turns into sharing tips on how to prey on children.

You are naive to think its only used for masterbation. You are naive to think you can film children forced to have sex and that doesn't promote pedophilia. First of all it is the act of pedophilia. A child was victimized to film it. Secondly of course it promotes it. It makes the behaviour open and accessible.

Its children Argus not consenting adults. No union wages. Just adults buying and selling children and forcing sex on them.

Pedophiles Argus in my opinion have no right to civil liberties and freedom of speech when it comes to any violent or sexual or non consensual activity with children.

In regards to adults, I leave it to others to define when the line has been crossed and now a crime is happening.

I actually think the federal government's behaviour in violating the freedom of expression rights of the gay community by singling out their porn was unconstitutional. But that was not child porn. Gay people were not asking the right to distribute child porn. They were asking for the right to circulate porn between consenting adults.

I am not in the business of telling anyone what their sex standards should be. But I make no apology for saying, engage in violence of any kind, society should have a say. Engage in crime to promote your ideas, society should have a say and when it comes to children, keep your hands off.

As for violence against women, there are plenty of women's advocates who can do a far better job than I explaining why their battle is not against all porn, just violent porn that degrades.

As for those with strong religious views on sexuality, I may not agree with them, but they also have a right in our society to their views have a right to speak out.

We all do.

[Rue]

Agus you stated

"This is a study of the relationship convicted sex offenders had with porn and child porn and even it does not even begin to suggest that the consumption motivated the crimes."

It shows consumption fuels opportunity and access to pedophilia. That was the point and something you seem to keep denying.

You quote'

"Those who advocate the censorship of sexual material have repeatedly enlisted the help of researchers to prove a link between sexual materials—even hard-core pornography—and sexual crime. The "link" that has been established has rested much more on religious and political thinking than on objective research data."

and then stated;

"Doesn't exactly support your views."

I deliberately put it in Argus because what I have attempted to do is provide non religious non moral research but acknowledge the above is what is being argued. I am not someone who just cites things to support my arguements.

You stated;

"I don't need any nonsense from "Morality in Media" thanks. Leave the bible thumpers out of this. I know what they think of porn."

Everyone knows I am no fundamentalist nor do I subscribe to fundamentalist religious approaches to sexual relationships but it is part of the dialogue and that is why I cited it, so people can compare.

You stated;

"Basically seems to agree with me, and points out that while the proliferation of violent porn has increased in Japan actual sex crimes have decreased."

Come on Argus read it. It says when opportunity and access to pedophilia is restricted crimes decrease. It is showing exactly what I am getting at and that getting into a debate as to whether the porno causes the pedophile to act is not the issue, opportunity and access to children is.

You stated;

"I'm not going to read a 168 page report, thanks. Perhaps you'd care to summarize?"

That's exactly what the problem is Argus. You ignore many things.

"Did you even read any of your own cites?"

Well we know you don't but still argue against them. Not exactly credible Argus.

More to the point, in an effort to try be credible I didn't just provide cites that support my own views, and you then assume because they don't agree with my views I couldn't possibly have read them.

You stated;

Huh? I can cite all many of large scale studies conducted by scientific researchers into this which go completely counter to the statement above."

Please do. That is the point.

You stated;

" In fact, a number of such studies are listed in the cites above which you apparently didn't read. But those are real studies which are documented and which can be examined for the reliability of their data."

So list them so we can have an appropriate debate.

You stated;

" However, it is known the US Postal Service does not target people at random for its stings. It targets known sex offenders. So it's hardly a shock if we learn that many of those it then catches up are people who have molested children."

However above comment would not support your contention nor does it repudiate mine.

You stated;

"Again, who did the study? What were their qualifications? How were the offenders selected - other than them being in prison? We need to know these things before we can accept a claim which runs counter to established research."

Argus probide the established research you keep referring to and I will in the next post present the research I am referring to.

You stated;

"Oh I'm sure there's a correlation. But that doesn't imply causation."

The above comment Argus is what I am criticizing. The issue when it comes to studying the relationship between child pronography and sex crimes is whether child pornography creates networks for pedophiles to meet each other and gain opportunity and access to children. Its whether it enables the financing of sex crimes and the fact it is evidence a crime of pedophilia was committed on a child for each and every child porno tape we see.

To suggest child pornography does not cause pedophilia is absurd. To make this conclusion you pretend the children in these movies are not children.

You stated;

" If you're a sex maniac out attacking women you almost certainly consume a lot of porn. "

You now mix up a different kind of sexual behaviour with pedophila.

If consenting adults want to engage in sado-masochism that is one thing. If they are into fetish behaviour and use safe words it is their business. However it becomes society's business if the people in adult movies did not participate in them of their own free will. It becomes society's business if women were actually mutilated or hurt -then it is a cirme.

You stated:

"That doesn't take a genius to figure out."

Then why do you keep missing the obvious point, an adult is not a child. A child can not form free consent. A child placed in a child porno tape is a victim of pedophilia.

You stated;

"You're entitled to believe whatever you want. It's just that there is no actual evidence to back up your belief, simply hysterical statements and often misguided exagerations by people who are not acredited researchers of any kind, with no provision of statistical evidence or factual documentation to back it up."

In the next post I provided research to repudiate the above in its entirety.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Rue