Is distributing kiddy porn okay in a good cause?

[Argus]

Far be it for me to suggest that governments elevating child pornography to the same level of importance as, oh, murder, has had anything to do with a desire to scare parents and then put themselves up as the great defender of children. But they have. And in doing so governments, particularly in the US, but also in Canada, have made the point that every single time someone posts a pornographic picture of a child they are victimizing that child again. In fact, posting it is deemed worse in law than simply downloading it from the internet. And is punished accordingly.

So what to make of the FBI being one of the world's greatest distributors of child pornography. Apparently they operate dozens of child porn sites trying to lure men to them and view their offerings. All in the name of justice, of course. But in doing so they are of course offering tons of pictures and videos of child pornography. Is it okay if they themselves don't get aroused by the pictures and videos they're distributing? And if their actions are not harmful to those children, then how can they lock people up for tens of years for doing the same as they do? 

To compare this to drug dealing the authorities often go undercover and try to make buys of cocaine and crack and heroin etc. But I don't believe they import vast quantities of crack and then set themselves up as dealers and sell crack to the general population.

.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-by-the-governments-own-logic-the-fbi-victimized-thousands-of-children

[AngusThermopyle]

I didn't know they're doing this. It takes some real mental gymnastics to justify what they're doing. In fact one could see them as being a big part of the problem in that doing this also helps disseminate the material and increase the problem.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'd say anyone who wants to view this kind of porn would find many other sites to do it on.  And I assume the FBI is just taking already released material from across the internet for their sites and obviously not posting their own content.  So in that sense it's not the worst thing in the world.

I'd imagine there's a huge ammount of porn already out there featuring children/teens aged 12-17.

[Argus]

31 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'd say anyone who wants to view this kind of porn would find many other sites to do it on.  And I assume the FBI is just taking already released material from across the internet for their sites and obviously not posting their own content.  So in that sense it's not the worst thing in the world.

I'd imagine there's a huge ammount of porn already out there featuring children/teens aged 12-17.

All true. But it's all true with lots of those who posts kiddy porn. And people have been sent to prison for life for doing what the FBI is doing. Even though they were just reposting material that, in some cases, was decades old.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

It's an interesting conundrum, because what they're doing is clearly illegal.  And those poor children...

[OftenWrong]

It's not that different from drug busts in a sting operation where "fake" drugs are used, or in a potential terrorist investigation where would-be criminals are enticed into planning and preparing to commit crimes for promises of lucrative pay. Consider it a "pre-emptive" form of policing. At least they are stopped before they commit an actual atrocity. Or would you rather wait until someone hurts a child for real before taking action?

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎04‎-‎28 at 0:25 PM, Argus said:

Far be it for me to suggest that governments elevating child pornography to the same level of importance as, oh, murder, has had anything to do with a desire to scare parents and then put themselves up as the great defender of children. But they have. And in doing so governments, particularly in the US, but also in Canada, have made the point that every single time someone posts a pornographic picture of a child they are victimizing that child again. In fact, posting it is deemed worse in law than simply downloading it from the internet. And is punished accordingly.

So what to make of the FBI being one of the world's greatest distributors of child pornography. Apparently they operate dozens of child porn sites trying to lure men to them and view their offerings. All in the name of justice, of course. But in doing so they are of course offering tons of pictures and videos of child pornography. Is it okay if they themselves don't get aroused by the pictures and videos they're distributing? And if their actions are not harmful to those children, then how can they lock people up for tens of years for doing the same as they do? 

To compare this to drug dealing the authorities often go undercover and try to make buys of cocaine and crack and heroin etc. But I don't believe they import vast quantities of crack and then set themselves up as dealers and sell crack to the general population.

.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-by-the-governments-own-logic-the-fbi-victimized-thousands-of-children

The laws of entrapment are complex. Trying to determine when one is fishing or not going over the line to try capture a criminal is precarious. There is a fine line betweenentrapment (goingt oo far to get the person to commit he crime) and fishing. Look its not just porno. Many political forum sites are set up to fish for extremists. You ave agents using forums to say extremist things hoping they cast the bait to catch extremists and follow them and get close to them.

The tactics used by a cop undercover are not that different from a pedophile recruiting its prey. They place themselves where they know the predators exist and cast bait waiting to hook one in.

There is nothing on the internet safe. Look on one hand I agree with you-there is a concern as to what you are saying and we have to question when does the ends justify the means. If arresting and catching a pedophile or pervert means putting out crap-is it worth it? The argument there is when you put out filth, the only people who get turned on by it deserve to be arrested anyways.

There's a problem with that. Some drug addicts as you know are clean but if they get enticed they go off the wagon. Pedophiles can stay dormant and under control but get easily pushed over the line.

Its a tough analogy though. A pedophile like a drug addict is an addict. The problem though is a drug addict usually hurts themselves where as the pedophile of course hurts a kid.

You ask a very tough ethical question now under debate in universities and police colleges. There is no easy answer.

I can tell you the child porno industry is in the high billions. I can tell you thanks to internet, its facilitated child porno tourism and child porno tapes. The problem with child porno is that child porno tape users know the difference between real children and those posed as children. Pedophiles, true pedophiles are attracted to ASEXUAL children whose anatomy has not developed yet. They are called a different name when they are attracted to teenagers who start developing sexual characteristics. (Hebeophiles).

Pedophiles know what they do is illegal. They are not insane. They know exactly what they do. In their minds they believe the entire world is sick except them. They believe they are not harming children. Their brains compartmentalize what they do. You get two basis types. One is a violent sadistic type who gets off on mutilation, pain, forced violence. The other are passive and don't see themselves as being violent just tender and caring. The passive ones often do not leave visible marks or injuries engaging in passive sex acts. Most pedophiles are relatives or well known to the children.

A pedophile by profile gains access to children by placing himself where he knows children will be and puts himself in a position where he will be alone with the children and/or has a power position of authority that gives him both access and privacy. The key ingredients to the crime of pedophilia equals access and privacy. You need both and pedophiles will cultivate and stock their pray sometimes taking years to do so.

More often then not its a relative, baby sitter or person in a position of trust whose left alone with children.

The internet acts as a networking tool that connects pedophiles who then facilitate the trade and exchange of children.

The reality is when you see a child porn film, most often the children in it have been used for many films not just one and they can be held captive for years.

The no.1 city in the world for the making of child porn right now is Prague, Czechoslovakia

The no.1 tourist sites for being able to access and molest children are Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand.

The fact is as well that the same crime syndicates behind child porn fund terrorist organizations. There is a direct link.

You can find all I said on the internet.

The problem is huge. Its huge because when we did not have internet it was localized and fragmented. Now its linked by thousands of syndicates and individuals bouncing signals making it hard to trace.

Many police don't use actual films. They fish on chat lines. I believe police fishing on chat lines for pedophiles is an essential part of policing and I am safe to say they prefer doing it that way then using actual films. In fact I can day in Canada they do not use porno films as bait. They use chat lines to surf. The police are ethical.  I can't talk because I don't know about US or European police methods. I do know Interpol has info sharing and most Euro police forces use ethical techniques. I would be interested to know what tapes the FBI uses because they are extremely sophisticated and would have other ways to fish and catch pedophiles. Using actual films of children would be clumsy and too obvious. They might to a buy sting in a warehouse but I doubt they actually show the tapes. They have goen undercover at group gatherings yes but they are trained not to initiate a crime otherwise it would throw the charge out.  You can't commit a crime to arrest someone for the crime.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Rue

[Argus]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

It's not that different from drug busts in a sting operation where "fake" drugs are used, or in a potential terrorist investigation where would-be criminals are enticed into planning and preparing to commit crimes for promises of lucrative pay. Consider it a "pre-emptive" form of policing. At least they are stopped before they commit an actual atrocity. Or would you rather wait until someone hurts a child for real before taking action?

You're missing the point when you say they were 'stopped before committing an actual atrocity'. Child pornography is considered an atrocity in and of itself. Politicians, activists and police have been making the point for decades now that posting such a picture is a fresh new violation of that underage person. That is why people who have never touched a child can be sent to prison for life for posting this material or even just downloading it.

Your analogies don't work either. A better analogy would be if the sting operation brought in massive quantities of drugs and distributed them around the country in order to bust individual users. Note that in busting individual users is never as important as busting the big distributor. The same is true of child porn. Busting an individual who downloads some pictures is not nearly as important to police as busting someone who runs a child porn web site - like they do.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Rue said:

The laws of entrapment are complex. Trying to determine when one is fishing or not going over the line to try capture a criminal is precarious.

Actually, entrapment is the smaller part of the ethical dilemma here. I'm more interested in the justification for outright doing something which lands other people in prison for life, ie distributing child pornography. Remember that this is considered a more serious crime than downloading it.

Quote

 You ave agents using forums to say extremist things hoping they cast the bait to catch extremists and follow them and get close to them

Yes, but it's not a crime to say extremist things. They don't put you in jail for two hundred years for saying extremist things.

Quote

Its a tough analogy though. A pedophile like a drug addict is an addict. The problem though is a drug addict usually hurts themselves where as the pedophile of course hurts a kid.

There are a lot of popular misconceptions about this which I know about since I was involved with the Canadian Civil Liberties Union when it was trying to fight the original child porn laws (ie, when it was made a criminal code offense in and of itself to distribute or possess as opposed to being under the obscenity provisions). 

To start with you're falling into the trap of believing all pedophiles molest children. Most children are not molested by pedophiles at all, but by 'regular' people in 'crimes of opportunity'. The vast majority of children are molested by parents, guardians, other relatives, teachers, coaches, etc. And most of those people are not pedophiles. Btw, the statistics on child molestation are often enormously difficult to interpret because the definition of 'child' goes right up to 17 years, 11 months, and 364 days. Similarly our definition of child pornography includes 17 year olds. 

Quote

I can tell you the child porno industry is in the high billions.

This is another standard misconception. The idea there is a 'child porn industry' worth billions has been around for a while. But when some real journalists at the Wall Street Journal actually looked into it and tried to find out where that idea came from they eventually traced it to a single marketer of parental censorship software, and that marketer could not provider any real source but the FBI. The FBI, in turn, denied ever giving any such figure.

 

Quote

The reality is when you see a child porn film, most often the children in it have been used for many films not just one and they can be held captive for years.

The no.1 city in the world for the making of child porn right now is Prague, Czechoslovakia

It's been a couple of years since I even looked idly into this but from my memory the vast majority of child porn consists of teenagers willingly videotaping each other, and actual children's pictures and videos from the seventies, during a brief period when it was actually legal in a number of countries and some glossy magazines sprang up to service demand. Now that I think of it, I used to buy a British Mens magazine called Mayfair when I was a teenager because some of the naked girls in it were as young as 15 or 16. That was a 'respectable' magazine like playboy and I believe it's still in operation (though obviously no longer with 15 year olds). Those pictures today would quality as child porn.

Quote

The problem is huge. Its huge because when we did not have internet it was localized and fragmented. Now its linked by thousands of syndicates and individuals bouncing signals making it hard to trace.

I disagree. The publicity is huge.  The fearmongering is huge. The problem is small. There are not that many pedophiles, and most of them are probably too terrified to go near stuff like this. The only reason anyone can make any money on it is because the internet itself is huge, and a tiny tiny subgroup of a huge group still makes for profit. On the other side of the fence, I can think of a hell of a lot safer ways to make a crooked buck on the internet than trying to set up a kiddy porn site! I can steal millions through various scams and maybe get a year in jail in the unlikely event I'm caught! No way would I want to go near this with all the police agencies sifting through the internet and the courts ready to clamp you in prison for years!

And remember, the REAL problem is not pictures or videos. The real problem is actual child abuse, most of which has nothing to do with child porn.

 

Edited April 30, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

Argus you have made a lot of comments that are just not accurate and I am going to take the time to address each one in detail.

To start with you said: “ Most children are not molested by pedophiles at all, but by 'regular' people in 'crimes of opportunity'.”

To start with the definition of a pedophile  called pedophilia or spelled by the British as paedophilia refers to a psychiatric disorder as defined by the Diagnostic And Statistiual Manual of Mental Disorders, Edition 5(DSM-5) is as a sexual attraction (paraphilia) that involves intense and recurrent (repeating, constant, obsessive, uncontrollable) sexual urges towards prepubescent children that that have been acted on OR WHICH CASES THE PERSON WITH THE ATTRACTION DISTRESS OR INTERPERSONAL DIFFICULTY. So it is inaccurate to suggest pedophilia manifests only once the act of sexual molestation is carried out or someone isn’t a pedophile who molests a child sexually.

“Regular people” as you call them, don’t engage in sexual acts against children. It is a crime that comes from a persistent thought pattern with a physical component that is actualized when the pedophile has access and opportunity. The fact a pedophile does NOT have access or opportunity does not mean they are NOT a pedophile.

The diagnosis a predicated on a measurable or evident preference for asexual humans. Its why the cut-off point of diagnosis entails victims up to puberty and the onsent-of secondary sexual characteristics, i.e., age 13. Once a child begins to obtain sexual characteristics, preference for such objects sexually is  given another name precisely because once sexual characteristics form, the psychological process behind the preference is triggered by things other than asexual features.

For that matter, you stated: “ the vast majority of child porn consists of teenagers willingly videotaping each other, and actual children's pictures and videos..”

Well I have no idea where you would think that. I can tell you the classification of one as a pedophile is given to those people commencing at the age of 16 or if younger at least 5 years older than the victim who must be asexual in characteristic.

As we use it today it describes a thought pattern and sexual preference whether its manifested or not but most often it becomes evidenced through an act of child sexual abuse of confession during therapy.

References:

Diagnostic And Statistiual Manual of Mental Disorders, Edition 5(DSM-5)  American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013 

Kail, RV; Cavanaugh JC (2010). Human Development: A Lifespan View (5th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 296. ISBN 0495600377. 

 

Michael (2008). Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. p. vii. 

 

Ames MA, Houston DA (August 1990). "Legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia". Arch Sex Behav. 19 (4): 333–42. doi:10.1007/BF01541928. PMID 2205170. 

 

Lanning, Kenneth (2010). "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" (PDF). National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. 

 

Hall RC, Hall RC (2007). "A profile of pedophilia: definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues". Mayo Clin. Proc. 82 (4): 457–71. doi:10.4065/82.4.457. PMID 17418075. 

 

Blaney, Paul H.; Millon, Theodore (2009). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (Oxford Series in Clinical Psychology) (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, USA. p. 528. ISBN 0-19-537421-5. Some cases of child molestation, especially those involving incest, are committed in the absence of any identifiable deviant erotic age preference

 

Edwards, M. (1997) "Treatment for Paedophiles; Treatment for Sex Offenders". Paedophile Policy and Prevention, Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series (12), 74-75.

 

Feelgood S, Hoyer J (2008). "Child molester or paedophile? Sociolegal versus psychopathological classification of sexual offenders against children". Journal of Sexual Aggression. 14 (1): 33–43. doi:10.1080/13552600802133860. 

 

Seto MC (2009). "Pedophilia". Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 5: 391–407. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618. PMID 19327034.

[Rue]

The definition I use for child pornography is consistent with the  1999, Interpol Standing Working Group on Offenses Against Minors which uses the following definition:

"Child pornography is the consequence of the exploitation or sexual abuse perpetrated against a child. It can be defined as any means of depicting or promoting sexual abuse of a child, including print and/or audio, centered on sex acts or the genital organs of children."

[Rue]

Argus you stated:

“The idea there is a 'child porn industry' worth billions has been around for a while. But when some real journalists at the Wall Street Journal actually looked into it and tried to find out where that idea came from they eventually traced it to a single marketer of parental censorship software, and that marketer could not provider any real source but the FBI. The FBI, in turn, denied ever giving any such figure. the vast majority of child porn consists of teenagers willingly videotaping each other, and actual children's pictures and videos.”

Again I do not know where you get your information from but with due respect its inaccurate.

According to:

rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ncecc-cncee/factsheets-fichesdocu/enviroscan-analyseenviro-eng.htm

“ The sexual exploitation of children and youth takes many forms and there are also interconnections between sexual abuse through prostitution and trafficking and the Internet that exist on a global level. The Internet provides new tools to assist in the sale of children and youth, creates space to communicate needs of and availability of such “services,” and provides access to vulnerable people to victimize. Some examples of how technology has been utilized to change the way child sexual exploitation occurs include chat rooms and bulletin boards, cellular/mobile phones, and web cameras. There are also various mediums of computer related communication that can operate as vehicles that facilitate Internet based child sexual exploitation. Some examples include anonymous remailers, e-mail, newsgroups, instant messaging, and short messaging service. These new developments and capabilities have several impacts on law enforcement efforts both locally and globally and have also altered the ways in which these crimes can be committed.”

I have never never seen any information to suggest as you stated Argus that the vast majority of  of child porn consists of teenagers videotaping each other and I very much doubt such information exists as explained here: source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009001/article/10783-eng.htm:

 

“Despite what appears, according to this U.S. research, to be a growing number of children and youth exposed to exploitive and threatening material, few of these incidents are reported to the authorities. For example, less than 10% of American children and youth sexually solicited over the Internet in 2005 reported the incident to law enforcement authorities, Internet service providers, or some other authority; reporting was even less likely for unwanted exposure to sexual material (Wolak et al., 2006). About 12% of unwanted sexual solicitations were handled by parents or guardians (Wolak et al., 2006). However, American youth failed to tell anyone about the solicitations in 56% of cases (Wolak et al., 2006). Children and youth may not disclose experiences of online sexual exploitation for several reasons, including being too frightened or embarrassed or not understanding the magnitude of the situation (Wolak et al., 2006).

Police-reported data from 2006 and 2007 show few incidents of child luring

In the most recent two-year period, 2006 to 2007, a total of 464 incidents of child luring were reported by police services across Canada.³ This figure represents an average of about 3 incidents of child luring per 100,000 youth under the age of 18, reported to police per year. While more than 6 in 10 child luring incidents reported to police during 2006 and 2007 were not cleared, charges were laid or recommended against an accused in about 3 in 10 incidents; the remaining offences (8%) were cleared otherwise.⁴ Clearance rates⁵ vary with the type of offence, however, the overall clearance rate for police-reported incidents involving sex crimes classified as 'other sexual offences'⁶ (which primarily involve sexual abuses against children) was nearly 8 in 10 for the two-year period covering 2006 and 2007. More similar to luring incidents, over 4 in 10 police-reported incidents involving child pornography were cleared during the same timeframe.

When an offence is not cleared either by the laying or recommendation of charges or through some other means, it can signify that a chargeable suspect has not been identified in conjunction with the offence. Thus, the proportion of child luring incidents not cleared by the laying of charges or cleared otherwise may be explained by the difficulties inherent in identifying and apprehending online predators outside of the borderless and seemingly anonymous world of the Internet. There are many challenges police face in acquiring the evidence necessary to lay charges against people for crimes committed over the Internet. For example, conversations or sexually exploitative images are easily stored and removed from digital devices such as cameras, cellular phones, music players and game consoles; all of which are likely to go undetected (Denis, 2007). Training, cooperation and information sharing between organizations⁷, as well as time and funding have been identified as essential in locating online offenders both nationally and internationally (Sinclair and Sugar, 2005).

Overall, most incidents of child luring coming to the attention of police involved a single charge or violation. In 2006 and 2007, for about three-quarters of police-reported incidents involving a child luring offence, the luring was the only violation. The remaining quarter of child luring incidents involved one or more additional criminal violations such as the production or distribution of child pornography; sexual assault (level 1)⁸; indecent acts; or sex crimes categorized as 'other sexual offences'.

That most incidents of child luring reported to police involve a single violation may be related to the fact that an accused was not identified in a majority of these incidents (i.e., about 4 in 10 police-reported incidents involving child luring were cleared by charge or cleared otherwise during 2006 and 2007). Child luring cases where there is no accused tend to involve a single charge, while multiple violations were more common among incidents where an accused was identified. More specifically, just over half (51%) of incidents where an accused was identified⁹ involved two or more violations, while just under half (49%) involved a single violation, in 2006 and 2007.”

[Rue]

You then state:

“The fearmongering is huge. The problem is small. There are not that many pedophiles, and most of them are probably too terrified to go near stuff like this. The only reason anyone can make any money on it is because the internet itself is huge, and a tiny tiny subgroup of a huge group still makes for profit.”

Again I am not sure where you get your info from the above site states and I quote:

“ Pornography is not a new industry but rather an old one with evolving means and mediums. The profits generated through Internet based pornography exceed $2.5 billion dollars per year (Internet pornography 2004) with 72 million Internet users viewing Internet based pornography each year (National Coalition 2004). While the Internet has obviously changed the way people are exposed to and can obtain adult pornography, it has simultaneously had the same (and different) impacts within the realm of child pornography - an illegal arm of pornography industry.”  

and….

“ The child pornography industry is a $2-3 billion dollar one (Quick facts 2004; Internet pornography 2004). The introduction of the Internet has brought wide exposure to this form of illegal material: daily requests for child pornography performed on the gnutella search engine total 116,000 (Internet pornography 2004); and, in excess of 20,000 child pornographic images are posted on the Internet each week (Hughes 2001).”

Take a look here:  

toptenreviews.com/software/security/best-internet-filter-software/internet-pornography-statistics.html

Every Second . . .

$3,075.64 is spent on pornography
28,258 people are viewing pornography
372 people are typing adult search terms

Every 39 Minutes . . .                                                                                                                                                         

A new pornographic video is created in the United States

 

At: http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php it states:

“ The total porn industry revenue for 2006: $13.3 billion in the United States; $97 billion worldwide (Internet Filter Review).

Statistics on Online Perpetrators

1 in 7 children who use the internet have been sexually solicated - 2005. (Internet Filter Review)

1 in 4 kids participate in Real Time Chat. (FamilyPC Survey, 2000).

1 in 5 children (10 to 17 years old) receives unwanted sexual solicitations online (Youth Internet Safety Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, 2001).

2 in 5 abductions of children ages 15-17 are due to Internet contact (San Diego Police Dept.).

76% of victims in Net-initiated sexual exploitation cases were 13-15, 75% were girls. "Most cases progressed to sexual encounters" - 93% of the face-to-face meetings involved illegal sex (Journal of Adolescent Health, November 2004).”

 

Argus you stated, “ And remember, the REAL problem is not pictures or videos. The real problem is actual child abuse, most of which has nothing to do with child porn.”

Again I have no idea where you got that information from because consider these statistics at: https://www.wearethorn.org/child-pornography-and-abuse-statistics/ :

·         NCMEC reviewed 22 million images and videos of suspected child sexual abuse imagery in its victim identification program in 2013 — more than a 5,000% increase from 2007

 

·         19% of identified offenders in a survey had images of children younger than 3 years old; 39% younger than 6 years old; and 83% younger than 12 years old. (NCMEC Testimony)

and:

http://www.covenanteyes.com/2012/06/01/how-big-is-the-pornography-industry-in-the-united-states/

“The New York Times quoted a 1998 Forrester Research study which estimated the combined revenues of pornographic networks, pay-per-view movies on cable and satellite, Internet websites, in-room hotel movies, phone sex, sex toys, and pornographic magazines to have been no less than $10 billion. In that same year, Forbes magazine published an article stating that the pornography industry could not have been more than $3.9 billion. The Forbes article pointed to the lack of published methodology used by Forrester Research to come up with the $10 billion figure. Additionally, it used well-documented data on the revenues of all magazines, video sales, rentals, and pay-per-view, and then generously assumed pornography made up one-fifth of those sales. It concluded that even this liberal estimate placed adult video sales and rentals at no more than $1.8 billion, Internet at $1 billion, pay-per-view at $128 million, and magazines at $1 billion.

Fast forward several years to a detailed meta-analysis done by Covenant Eyes. Their study shows that in 2005 and 2006, the United States pornography industry generated $12.62 and $13.33 billion in revenue respectively. This encompassed video sales and rentals, internet, cable, pay-per-view, in-room, mobile, phone sex, exotic dance clubs, novelties, and magazines.

So what about now, in 2012? Very little research has been done recently into the size of the pornography industry. For instance, a 2012 Time article quoted an estimate by the Adult Video Network done several years ago for the U.S. online adult entertainment industry at $2.8 billion. Note that this does not indicate what exactly was included in the study, only noting that it was the “online” adult entertainment industry.

Keeping these studies in mind and the massive amount of free internet pornography available, let’s conservatively estimate the U.S. pornography industry at around $8 billion. Comparatively, this estimation would place the pornography industry at the same size as the $8 billion U.S. bottled water industry. Additionally, pornography would make as much as eBay expects customers to buy and sell in merchandise in 2012. Finally, the pornography industry would equal the amount of digital merchandise iTunes is on pace to sell in 2012.”

 

 

 

 

[Rue]

Take a  look at: http://www.toptenreviews.com/software/security/best-internet-filter-software/internet-pornography-statistics.html

• 1 in 7 youths have received sexual solicitation
• 116,000 daily requests for child pornography
• 100,000 websites offer illegal child pornography
• 11 = average age of first internet porn exposure
• 1 in 7 youths have received sexual solicitation (that's as many as 3 kids in
  your child's school class!)
• there are 4.2 Million pornographic websites
  (12% of total websites)
• there are 68 Million daily pornographic search engine requests
  (25% of total requests)
• 34% of average users received unwanted pornographic exposure
• 1.5 Billion pornographic downloads
  per month (peer-to-peer)
  (35% of total downloads)
• 42.7% Of internet users
  view pornography
• 72 Million worldwide internet
  users visit adult
  sites per month

(the above is stats from 2006)

 

 

 

[Rue]

My comments about the travel industry tied to child porn comes from:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ncecc-cncee/factsheets-fichesdocu/enviroscan-analyseenviro-eng.htm

Child Sexual Tourism

Child sex tourism involves the act of traveling to a foreign country to engage in sexual activity with a child who, in the host country, is considered a minor (Saytarly 2003). Each year thousands of tourists travel to Eastern European and Third World countries to engage in sexual relations with minors (Flowers 2001; http://www.childright.nl). A low age of consent, a tolerance for sexual relations with children, inadequate legislation, poorly resourced law enforcement, an active sex trade industry, and poverty make certain areas prime for this type of offence. As well, hundreds of thousands of women and children are sold, trafficked, or forced into the South Asian sex trade (Flowers 2001; S. Asia 2004). In fact, of the 1.2 million women and children trafficked each year throughout the world, 500,000 women and children are trafficked in Asia alone (Flowers 2001; S. Asia 2004). Advances in technology have played a significant role in developing the child sex tourism industry. The Internet is often used to provide access to child prostitutes, identify the locations of child sex tourism operators, and to promote and complete the sale and trafficking of children (Chase and Statham 2004).

 

[Rue]

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/judges_journal/2013/winter/human_trafficking_and_internet_and_other_technologies_too.html

 

The co-relation between human trafficking the internet is there for all to find.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Rue said:

Argus you have made a lot of comments that are just not accurate and I am going to take the time to address each one in detail.

To start with you said: “ Most children are not molested by pedophiles at all, but by 'regular' people in 'crimes of opportunity'.”

I will respond with the following from the CBC

Just because someone has a sexual interest in children does not mean they’re going to act on their attraction. Dr. James Cantor (PhD), the world’s leading pedophile expert, has reason to believe that the great majority of pedophiles may never offend against children, and choose to keep their attractions a secret.

While pedophilia refers to the sexual attraction to children, child molester is the term applied to people who act on their attraction. In fact, according to Dr. Cantor, many child molesters are not actually pedophiles, but are people seeking opportunistic sexual gratification from children who they find accessible.

http://www.cbc.ca/firsthand/m/features/four-misconceptions-about-pedophiles

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Rue said:

The definition I use for child pornography is consistent with the  1999, Interpol Standing Working Group on Offenses Against Minors which uses the following definition:

"Child pornography is the consequence of the exploitation or sexual abuse perpetrated against a child. It can be defined as any means of depicting or promoting sexual abuse of a child, including print and/or audio, centered on sex acts or the genital organs of children."

That's nice, but it still remains a fact that someone who finds a beautiful young woman who is 17 years and 364 days old to be attractive is not a pedophile nor child molester.  Nevertheless, the law still calls any pictures of such a person child pornography.

Do you think all the men looking at those topless pictures of 16 year olds in British newspapers, or seeing them naked in magazines like Mayfair were pedophiles or child molesters? You know that those girls' parents had to sign a consent form for them to appear? You might find that astonishing in today's Victorian atmosphere, but back in the '70s there wasn't the same degree of hysteria about naked pictures. Today, if a 16 year old has her naked picture appear on the internet society acts like her life is over and she faces years of therapy. It's of such massive, towering importance they might even commit suicide! Yet back in the '70s parents signed consent forms for their daughters to be topless in the newspaper. I think this just shows how silly we've gotten over such things.

BTW, if a 16 year old boy today was found looking at the same pictures I looked at when I was 16 they would be arrested and charged with possession of child porn and be labelled a pervert and have their name go on the sex offenders list for life.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Rue said:

You then state:

“The fearmongering is huge. The problem is small. There are not that many pedophiles, and most of them are probably too terrified to go near stuff like this. The only reason anyone can make any money on it is because the internet itself is huge, and a tiny tiny subgroup of a huge group still makes for profit.”

Again I am not sure where you get your info from the above site states and I quote:

“ Pornography is not a new industry but rather an old one with evolving means and mediums. The profits generated through Internet based pornography exceed $2.5 billion dollars per year (Internet pornography 2004) with 72 million Internet users viewing Internet based pornography each year (National Coalition 2004). While the Internet has obviously changed the way people are exposed to and can obtain adult pornography, it has simultaneously had the same (and different) impacts within the realm of child pornography - an illegal arm of pornography industry.”  

and….

“ The child pornography industry is a $2-3 billion dollar one (Quick facts 2004; Internet pornography 2004). The introduction of the Internet has brought wide exposure to this form of illegal material: daily requests for child pornography performed on the gnutella search engine total 116,000 (Internet pornography 2004); and, in excess of 20,000 child pornographic images are posted on the Internet each week (Hughes 2001).”

Sorry but I don't believe that nonsense. According to what you posted the money from child pornography is roughly equal to the money in 'regular' pornography. Huh!? That's ridiculous! There are so many porn sites out there that anyone who puts much time on the internet can't avoid tripping over the damned things! Yet I've never ever come across a child porn site. Not even once. A lot of these figures are invented by people who are overly emotional and consumed with indignation and righteousness. I can't actually quote the WSJ article because it's behind a pay wall but a part of it shows how easily these figures are spread everywhere.

Bialik, Carl 2006. "Measuring the Child Porn Trade," The Wall Street Journal, April 18. "Unlike, say, the soft drink or airline industries, the child pornography industry doesn't report its annual sales to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Yet in a press release ahead of a recent House of Representatives hearing aimed at curbing the industry, Texas Republican Boe Barton said, "Child pornography is apparently a multibillion... my staff analysis says 20 billion a year Business. Twenty Billion dollars." Some press reports said the figure applied only to the industry's online segment. The New York Times reported, "the sexual exploitation of children on the internet is a $20 billion industry that continues to expand in the United States and abroad," citing witnesses at the hearing. 

What was Rep. Barton's staff analysis? A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee told me the source of the number was the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a group that advocates for the protection of children. When I first talked with that group's president, Ernie Allen, he told me that Standard Chartered ank, which has worked !ith the NCMEC to cut off funding to child porn traffickers, wanted a quantitative analysis of the problem, so it asked for a measurement from consulting firm McKinsey K Co. Mr. Allen faxed me an NCMEC  paper that cites the McKinsey study in placing the child porn industry at $20 billion in 1999, and $4 billion in 2004. But a McKinsey spokesman painted a different picture for me. "The numer was not calculated or generated by McKinsey," he wrote in an email. Instead, for a pro bono analysis for Standard Chartered, he said, McKinsey used a number that appeared in a report last year by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for sexual Purposes, an international advocacy group. But the trail didn't end there. That report, in turn, attributed the number to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as did a report last year from the Council of Europe, a Strasbourg, France based human rights watchdog. Both of those reports noted that estimates range widely, from $3 billion to $20 billion. FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told me in an email, "The FBI has not stated the $20 illion figure... . I have asked many people who would know for sure if we have  attached the $20 billion number to this problem. I have scoured our web site, too. Nothing!"

So what happens is someone, usually a politician, comes out with some figure, wanting to toke alarm and present themselves as the solution, and everyone then quotes and requotes it and each other. In any event, I was not intending to discuss child porn or its prevalence so much as the hypocrisy of the police agencies posting child porn and then arresting other people who post child porn.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

I went to the site Argus quoted:

http://www.cbc.ca/firsthand/m/features/four-misconceptions-about-pedophiles and I am going to number the quotes I am then going to repudiate from the summary of Four Miconceptions About Pedophiles which is a synopsis of the “I, Pedophile” documentary.

First off the article states:

“Dr. James Cantor (PhD), the world’s leading pedophile expert”

First off Dr. James Cantor is not the world’s leading pedophile expert although perhaps in his mind he is. Think about that for a second. What would make him or anyone for that matter THE “world’s leading pedophile expert”?  He’s a psychologist who has spent about 10 years on the topic at CAMH. Excuse me but he is not a forensic psychiatrist-and the last time I looked until he becomes one he can study pedophilia and do research on it but that in itself does not make him THE WORLD’S leading expert. In fact he's not a forensic profiler or psychiatrist or for that matter a sex crimes police detective who has spent years tracking down and catching pedophiles so excuse me if I consider this claim he is THE WORLD”S leading expert a tad exaggerated

In fact in the real world there are many dedicated professionals who deal with the subject and he is not a leading expert just one of thousands. There is no one leading expert but I will take the expertise of a forensic psychiatrist, experienced sex crimes police investigator or for that matter other pedophiles as to how pedophiles engage in their operations before I will his which I find very suspect because of his agenda which I shall now explain. Dr. Cantor argues the notion that if a pedophile does not act on their urges they are not problematic to society. This is why this article which Argus quoted and can also be found in the Toronto Star as well at https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html refers to the support group, “ Virtuous Pedophiles”. That group is the largest online support group for pedophiles. Its run by self-identified pedophiles who use fake names. That group is devoted to providing social support and resources to pedophiles who swear to live celibate, non-offending lives.

Excuse me but Dr. Kantor and this group support and defend pedophiles as misunderstood victims. Their political agenda is to suggest pedophiles who don’t act out their sex urges are “virtuous” and you bet I have a problem using the term “virtuous”. This is about their mental illness called pedophilia and the danger it represents to society. The concept they are o.k. as long as they don’t act on their urges is  called “rationalization” an attempt to justify the illness as not being morally unacceptable as long as its not acted on.

First off I am not here to validate what pedophiles feel, or define them as morally acceptable or harmless which is what this group wants.  My focus on this topic is on the  children victims of pedophiles.

Next and most important I would argue pedophiles are not victims as this group and Kantor portray them as and further are not entitled to moral acceptability just because  they keep their penis in their zipper. What a ridiculous argument and its highlighted in this quote from the article which states:

“Just because someone has a sexual interest in children does not mean they’re going to act on their attraction. “

What the hell does that mean?  Following the above logic,  is  someone less alcoholic because they don’t drink? Is someone no longer a pyromaniac because they have not light a fire? Is  a terrorist not a terrorist as long as he does not blow people up? Just what kind of reasoning states that urges to sexually molest children are not dangerous unless they are acted on? Do I need to wait for an abusive man to hurt his wife to know he’s dangerous from past behaviour?  This argument is  absurd and tries to redefine an inherently dangerous mental illness as safe as long as its not acted on. What nonsense. What a blatant example of pedophiles trying to repackage themselves to renter society as respectable safe individuals.

Can we get real? Do you want a pedophile teaching your children, leading your church, running your boy scouts because he’s got his urges under control? Oh its o.k. he’s got his urges under control let him baby sit? What insanity is this?

Policing , particularly policing of sex  crimes is often about preventing the crimes from transpiring not simply waiting for them to happen.

Now let’s once again confront this rationalization of pedophile because that is what it is-a rationalization-an attempt to rationalize pedophilia by artificially dividing it into a dormant and active state and saying only when its acted on or becomes active is it a problem and even then we won’t call child molestation pedophilia as this article does.

There is no such thing as a virtuous pedophile or a dormant pedophile. Each one, is but one step from molestation. No pedophile can guarantee control of their urges and that is the biggest misconception of the article Kantor and these pedophiles advance-that pedophile urges can be controlled. They cannot. They might be temporarily subdued but never ever controlled.

There are men who even after their testacles have been removed have gone to pharmacies, bought drugs to get erections and continued to molest children Make no mistake, no drug, no modified behaviour program not even castration fully stops pedophile urges.

Yes you should  see a red flag when you hear a pedophile call themselves virtuous and claim to have their urges under control just as you should I have a problem when an alcoholic says he can stop drinking any time he wants or a gay person can stop being gay if he goes to a Christian camp and let in Jesus. This is  ridiculous pop psychology which tries to make victims and virtuous people out of people with sexual disorders.

It misses the point. A sexual proclivity, a sexual drive, a sexual urge or desire is NOT something that goes away because you claim you control it. That is a false misconception. You don’t “control” sex urges- in fact if anything  you might be able to “repress” a sex urge.  Repression is an attempt to use reason over emotion, logic over primal drive, and it is presented as an admirable notion on t.v.  with  Dr. Spock in Star Trek but in real life, it is not how the brain works and is wired when it comes to sexual desire and drive. No you don’t turn it off simply holding your breath. What nonsense.

You can try give drugs to deaden the sexual urge, cut off the source of testosterone by removing the testacles, even place an electric box in the brain that can send shocks when a certain part of the brain of a pedophile lights up, but it won’t stop the urge and none of those methods end or stop the urge at best they might for a temporary period prevent it.

How do I know this? The same way police detectives, forensic profilers, psychiatrists, nurses, certain social and health workers know it-we have talked to and gotten into the heads of pedophiles. They confess. Their stories are then broken down and catalogued step by step and profilers put together repeating patterns of behaviour that emerge from the trail of behaviour they leave behind. Pedophiles have a motis  operandi or method of operation common to all addicts and in particular people with sexual disorders-they rationalize-they try make what  they do, what they feel, how they victimize and treat children, seem harmless.  This is why Kantor is called a dupe in the field. He’s bought in to how pedophiles who rationalize themselves as legitimate and victims want him to see them. This is not about what they want. This is about the harm they do children and Kantor has lost his detachment from the subject he studies.  The moral respectability of pedophiles is not and has never been the issue.

This second  statement from the article Argus quotes says:

2-“ (Kantor) has reason to believe that the great majority of pedophiles may never offend against children, and choose to keep their attractions a secret.”

 Nonsense. There are no statistics to back the above. Read the next sentence above…, there are no definitive stats because the “great majority of pedophiles choose to keep their attractions a secret”. For that matter most sex crimes whether they be against children or adults go unreported and when they are exposed there’s far more than the one the accused is charged with.

So the very quote makes no sense.  Think about it. If the majority of pedophiles keep their attractions secret then logic alone tells you there isn’t accurate disclosurere of the true rate of pedophile acts to provide a reasonable basis for anyone let alone Kantor to conclude the above.  Also go look for yourselves and research sex crimes. The vast majority of sex crimes whether its child molestation, sexual assault, etc., are NEVER reported.

Please-anyone who tells you they have “reason to believe” anything about sex crimes

Now let’s go to this third quote in the article which states:

“ While pedophilia refers to the sexual attraction to children, child molester is the term applied to people who act on their attraction. ”

Nonsense. I provided the DSV – 5 and Interpol definitions used for pedophilia. There’s also an international definition. There is no such thing as a definitions of a sexual disorder as only coming into effect or realization or existence once its acted on. In law, some crimes don’t happen until they are acted and the above quote mixes up the law with psychiatry and how sexual disorders are defined. For that matter the law does define crimes not just by actus reus or physical action, but also by state of mind (mens rea) and there are some crimes that can be proven without any need for physical action, i.e., conspiracy, being an accomplice before or after the fact, assault.

Let’s be very clear because this article is seriously flawed, pedophilia is the mental state of having sexual desires for children.  Child molestation is the physical consummation of that thought or urge. The two are directly related as cause and effect. Two define them as separate categories is absurd. One is the dormant phase, one the active phase of the same disorder and the whole point of policing of sex crimes and of psychotherapy or psychiatric intervention is to PREVENT the urge from being acted on.  Think of how silly the argument is of trying to differentiate child molestation from pedophilia and saying it is something else. Using that logic, why treat anyone until they molest?  Can you see how absurd trying to split the dormant/passive and active/aggressive stage of the same illness is? Hey why arrest pyromaniacs before they light fires. Why arrest someone before they get in a car drunk? Why engage in intervention of terrorists before they attack or place abusive men in anger management programs before they kill their wives? What kind of idiot reasoning is that?

Child molestation is the act of a pedophile, the physical carrying out of pedophilia, no its not some magic unattached to pedophilia. Pedophile feelings are always one step from ignition-the ignition is opportunity and access to children and in life, in reality, access and opportunity to children can happen in an instant.

The article also states:

“ In fact, according to Dr. Cantor, many child molesters are not actually pedophiles, but are people seeking opportunistic sexual gratification from children who they find accessible.”

How is a child molester seeking opportunistic sexual gratification from children who they find accessible NOT a pedophile? What a ludicrous thing to say. What magic makes one a non-pedophile when he molests children?

The article also states: “Pedophiles are not attracted to all children.” and…. Like heterosexuals, research suggests that pedophiles are either attracted to females or males, but not usually both. ”Pedophiles also differ in what age ranges they find attractive. ”

The above is absolutely and utterly false. There is no research that proves the above but in fact the opposite. Statistics and in depth analysis of pedophiles by examining what lights up in their brain and what causes them to become erect shows they are attracted to children precisely because they are without sexual characteristics, i.e., neither female or male.

In fact a pedophile will molest a child of either gender when given access and opportunity precisely because they have no sexual characteristics. The above article confuses pedophilia with other sexual disorders which can attach with pedophilia and cause other thought pattern.

In actual psychiatry and police work, pedophilia and  child molestation are cause and effect and children before puberty are not defined as “female” or  “male”.  Its only when children reach puberty and sexual molesters are attracted to teens, another sexual disorder arises which might have a component of  gender identification in it.

The above article also advances  the  false mythology that you have heterosexual or homosexual pedophiles. No.  Heterosexuality or homosexuality is defined as sex between consenting adults of same or similar age and power level in psychiatry, period.

One is no more a heterosexual then they are a homosexual once they molest a child. It’s the target of the act  that defines the sexual act as pedophile  NOT the gender of the child victim and I again repeat pedophilia is a the sexual desire for an ASEXUAL undeveloped human anatomy with no sexual features so it can’t be defined as an attraction to female or male characteristics as none exist in the victim.

The article also states:

“Just because someone is a pedophile, doesn't mean they're a bad person.”

So what does that mean? Are we supposed to believe pedophiles are good people as long as they repress their desires? Isn’t that the entire premises of the argument Argus makes and this article makes?  Why? Why is anyone defining pedophilia as good or bad? This isn’t a philosophical discussion. It’s a forensic psychiatric discussion predicated on the reality that a person with a sexual disorder such as pedophilia IS DANGEROUS. This is not an issue as to whether they are good or bad? ITS ABOUT THEIR BEING A RISK TO SOCIETY.

The article quotes Dr. James Cantor as saying:

 “that sites like Virtuous Pedophiles play a big role in reducing the instances of child molestation providing support to people who can’t seek help through traditional means for fear of being demonized — and reported to the police.”

Yes and numerous others say it’s a cover, a screen, a ridiculous pretext to allow pedophiles to manipulate people like Kantor who has lost his objectivity and serve to normalize pedophilia.

Let me ask you. When addicts meet at AA or gambler’s anonymous do they refer to themselves as virtuous? You know any support group of addicts who refer to themselves as virtuous. Talk about a red flag. Talk to drug addiction counsellors, recovering alcoholics and gamblers and drug addicts who fight every minute of every breath to stay clean-they do so by first and foremost learning humility. Humility is the first step in any healing process. That ego has to be ditched. It’s a false illusion until stripped prevents recovery. So when you hear a pedophile calling themselves “virtuous” you better believe there is something not right. There is nothing virtuous in being any kind of addict.

The article also advances this myth when it states:

“Pedophiles are not attracted to all children.”,,,”Pedophiles also differ in what age ranges they find attractive. ”

Nonsense. The cut off age in defining pedophilia is once the chlld develops ANY secondary sexual characteristics.

The article also presents this misrepresentation:

“ Not all pedophiles are only attracted to kids.”

Pedophiles are by their very definition sexually attracted to humans with asexual anatomies and are pre-pubic in physicality. If a pedophile has other sexual disorders or urges their pedophilia doesn’t magically go away or become less dangerous.

[Rue]

Treatment of pedophilia can not be done by anonymous chat lines of internet conversations as benevolent as that may sound.

You can  go on the internet and read for yourself how problematic the treatment of it is.

11 hours ago, Argus said:

That's nice, but it still remains a fact that someone who finds a beautiful young woman who is 17 years and 364 days old to be attractive is not a pedophile nor child molester.  Nevertheless, the law still calls any pictures of such a person child pornography.

Do you think all the men looking at those topless pictures of 16 year olds in British newspapers, or seeing them naked in magazines like Mayfair were pedophiles or child molesters? You know that those girls' parents had to sign a consent form for them to appear? You might find that astonishing in today's Victorian atmosphere, but back in the '70s there wasn't the same degree of hysteria about naked pictures. Today, if a 16 year old has her naked picture appear on the internet society acts like her life is over and she faces years of therapy. It's of such massive, towering importance they might even commit suicide! Yet back in the '70s parents signed consent forms for their daughters to be topless in the newspaper. I think this just shows how silly we've gotten over such things.

BTW, if a 16 year old boy today was found looking at the same pictures I looked at when I was 16 they would be arrested and charged with possession of child porn and be labelled a pervert and have their name go on the sex offenders list for life.

Your response above I note avoids pedophilia and how its defined and changes the issue to a debate as to whether child pornography should be regulated because you thuibnk a 16 year old will be charged and labelled a pervert if he looks at "naked pictures".

With due respect you mistake the actual laws of Canada as to child pornography and how they might be applied but I can say, if you think the courts arrest 16 year olds for having pictures of naked women you are being absurd.

Argus you also stated: this absurdity

“Far be it for me to suggest that governments elevating child pornography to the same level of importance as, oh, murder, has had anything to do with a desire to scare parents and then put themselves up as the great defender of children. But they have.”

Now you advance some conspiracy theory that government civil servants sit around day to day creating falsehoods about child pornography in a planned manner to scare parents and take over the mind control of children.

What does this mean myself,  police, children’s aid, psychiatrists, social workers, community workers, sex crimes units, crown prosecutors, family mediators, teachers, we are all involved in this conspiracy as knowing agents or are we all just fooled into thinking we see what we do? You think the issue is that easy to dismiss as a civil liberties issue about naked women?

Argus please. There is most certainly a co-relation between child pornography and child sex crimes:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/child-abuse.aspx

You can turn this into a semantic argument about what constitutes pornography but it doesn’t change the above fact or the fact that pornography that uses children is serious, its real, and it has to be addressed and so does for that matter any pornography that contains violence or mutilation of people or animals.

You may find that a civil  liberties infraction and I get it. Me, I lean almost always on the side of individual rights and less government intervention but sorry not when it comes to child sex depictions and crimes of violence using sex you bet I want regulations to protect the innocent, the vulnerable, and those who can not protect themselves from predators..

I come from a world where its real, its dark and it does unbelievably bad things to innocent people.

If someone wants to rationalize child sex, or the mutilation of bodies or animals  during sex or sexual violence, you bet I want society regulating and containing them.

 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Rue said:

In fact in the real world there are many dedicated professionals who deal with the subject and he is not a leading expert just one of thousands. There is no one leading expert but I will take the expertise of a forensic psychiatrist, experienced sex crimes police investigator or for that matter other pedophiles as to how pedophiles engage in their operations before I will his which I find very suspect because of his agenda which I shall now explain. Dr. Cantor argues the notion that if a pedophile does not act on their urges they are not problematic to society. This is why this article which Argus quoted and can also be found in the Toronto Star as well at https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html refers to the support group, “ Virtuous Pedophiles”. That group is the largest online support group for pedophiles. Its run by self-identified pedophiles who use fake names. That group is devoted to providing social support and resources to pedophiles who swear to live celibate, non-offending lives.

Excuse me but Dr. Kantor and this group support and defend pedophiles as misunderstood victims. Their political agenda is to suggest pedophiles who don’t act out their sex urges are “virtuous” and you bet I have a problem using the term “virtuous”. This is about their mental illness called pedophilia gically go away or become less dangerous.

Rue that is an awful lot of text arguing something which is only peripheral to the point here. Basically you're saying that pedophilia is bad and I don't think anyone disagrees.  It's a mental illness, and again, I don't think anyone disagrees. I highlight this specific point because it seems confusing to me. If we all admit it's a mental illness, beyond the control of the individuals afflicted with it, then why should we judge their morality? Being attracted to children is not a moral issue if it's caused by a mental illness (unless they harm children). And I also kind of agree that as long as they're not molesting children it's not a problem for society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cure it if we can but you've already said we can't.

As for this other part:

Quote

“ In fact, according to Dr. Cantor, many child molesters are not actually pedophiles, but are people seeking opportunistic sexual gratification from children who they find accessible.”

How is a child molester seeking opportunistic sexual gratification from children who they find accessible NOT a pedophile? What a ludicrous thing to say. What magic makes one a non-pedophile when he molests children?

I remind you that someone who molests a fourteen year old is also a child molester. But probably not a pedophile. Others, younger children, can be  molested by people who are simply immoral, or alcoholics or whatnot. ISIS is selling 12 year old girls on the auction block as sex slaves and I doubt the buyers or sellers are pedophiles.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Rue said:

With due respect you mistake the actual laws of Canada as to child pornography and how they might be applied but I can say, if you think the courts arrest 16 year olds for having pictures of naked women you are being absurd.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/bridgewater-teens-child-pornography-charges-court-1.3724664

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/teen-girl-guilty-of-distributing-child-pornography-in-sexting-case-1.784439

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/two-teens-charged-as-adults-for-possessing-child-pornography-of-themselves

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1332392-two-hants-county-teens-face-child-pornography-charges

https://www.mississauga.com/news-story/7082184-student-arrested-in-child-pornography-investigation-at-mississauga-public-school/

15 hours ago, Rue said:

Argus you also stated: this absurdity

“Far be it for me to suggest that governments elevating child pornography to the same level of importance as, oh, murder, has had anything to do with a desire to scare parents and then put themselves up as the great defender of children. But they have.”

Now you advance some conspiracy theory that government civil servants sit around day to day creating falsehoods about child pornography in a planned manner to scare parents and take over the mind control of children.

Look Rue, I know that this is an emotional issue. That's why politicians have been so eager to exploit it. I was here back when the then PC government of Brian Mulroney sought to implement criminal code changes that made it a crime to possess child porn. At that time the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian and Ontario Bar Associations argued against this, saying it was flatly unnecessary and would get artists arrested for art works (which it did). Child porn was already banned under obscenity provisions. But the government of the day was facing an election soon and it wanted an issue it could use against the opposition. So it drew up this draconian law which was overbroad in hopes they would oppose it. Then they tories could portray themselves as the defenders of children and the NDP and Liberals as supporting perverts. The opposition realized this so supported the legislation. Over the years, the government, both Liberal and Tory, has broadened it even further and made it even more draconian because it's always worth cheap political points to show yourself as the great defender of children, and it's not like anyone is going to object. No one dares given the mood of hysteria about the subject.

But the actual evidence of some great tide of child porn out there is sadly lacking. I remember when the Liberals sought to make it even more draconian one year they wanted to shock and disgust the opposition by showing them some. Only they couldn't find any. The RCMP couldn't find any. They finally got some from the OPP - to show how it's 'everywhere'.

15 hours ago, Rue said:

Argus please. There is most certainly a co-relation between child pornography and child sex crimes:

The forces of prudery have been trying for decades to demonstrate a causal link between pornography and sex crimes and failed miserably. Even the Presidents Commission on Pornography which Bush set up to find the link wound up failing, and actually saying that porn, in all probability, actually acts as an outlet for anti-social sexual desires, rather than inspiring it.  And then there's this, on child porn https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/07/outrage-as-judge-tells-the-truth-about-child-pornography/#6a6cec5303e9

And again, this is all peripheral to the subject of the morality of the authorities themselves distributing child pornography. I think we can all agree that distributing child porn is a BAD THING.

[Rue]

Sorry but I did not raise the topic of pedophilia you did. So I responded to it. I respect your debating the porn issue though, I do. I think you make some very valid points, I do. I am debating the other side but I do get some of your points. There is a fine line between child porn and porn, and violent porn and fantasy porn, etc. I get that. I am not for censoring porn per se. I am for regulating porn depicting violence or children or mutilation or harm to animals, yes.

Your comments on porn not child porn and porn that is not violent or harming animals, really for me should not be a legal concern or should be something for theologians and philosophers to debate. Not me. I follow the DSM-V Diagnostic Manual as to most people in the field. Its the best we have. It actually does make sense in how it defines hebeophiles, pedophiles and other sexual disorders and its constantly being upgraded. It is the best we have and yes it does keep up with changing morality but it will never depict sex between people with power imbalances as anything but a problem.I also appreciate contolled s and m is not dangerous and I am not talking about safe s and m either. What consenting adults do with their role playing aint my business or concern as long as no one is mutilated or killed.

All I can tell you is there is a dark side of humanity and it deals with pedophiles, child molestation and the networks they set up and they indeed are interrelated and they do try manipulate to gain respectability and hiding behind civil liberties argument is one such method. I have witnessed the evolution of these players grow across the world fueled by the internet. The police have no choice but to enter that internet to counter them.

Sorry a pedopile or any other person with a sex disorder who can not  truly control their urges. It just is not reality. At best they can temporarily repress them. Its not going away and because our planet has shrunk and people can communicate instantly and travel so easily, its of course spreading into large global networks that once remained hidden and isolated.

I do not see child porn as an issue that impacts on civil liberties nor do I see violent porn or animal mutilation or molestation porn a civil liberties issue. I do not think any of us should have a civil right to have  sex with children, watch sex with children,  engage or watch violent sex that mutilates or hurts or harms humans or animals. End of story.

No I do not think pedophiles who control their urges are entitled to any thought or  thing other than constant containment and monitoring. To me feelings for them, asking whether they are moral people or not, etc., it is not the issue-their illness is. I don't care nor do I care to care about pedophiles. It is wasted emotion. Its misplaced. Caring about pedophiles is as counter-productive a hating them. There's no point. The point is containment and control of them. They want to self-actualize which is the word for liking themselves and forgiving themselves, that is between them and their God if they have one, not me.

Make no mistake, people like me clean toilets. We don't contemplate why people need to crap or whether that crap is moral. All we know is that  crap coming from humans is  inevitable and someone must clean it up otherwise it spreads and infects/affects others.

Don't mistake me as someone who cares about crap. Nah. I just flush it and scrub bowls clean and some times I got to suck it out as it gets clogged in the legal system.. Some days I never think I will be able to wash the crap out of my hands at the end of the day. I have woken up bleeding from all the scratching I do in my sleep. Its an occupational hazard.  Some call that ptsd (post toilet scrubbing disorder).

If I worried about the crap I didn't always flush down the drain  I would have swallowed the sani-flush by now.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Rue

[OftenWrong]

On 28/04/2017 at 12:25 PM, Argus said:

governments, particularly in the US, but also in Canada, have made the point that every single time someone posts a pornographic picture of a child they are victimizing that child again. In fact, posting it is deemed worse in law than simply downloading it from the internet. And is punished accordingly.

This headline caught my attention today:
'Glee' actor Mark Salling, 35, dies before child pornography sentencing

Apparently he died by suicide. Now, far be it from me to defend those who view child porn, let alone actually commit pedophilia, but it made me think about people who were accused of homosexuality in the past, who as a result also committed suicide. Not too long ago, being gay was a crime and considered to be utterly repugnant. Today it is viewed as normal and "not a choice". So I wonder if we are wrong to punish pedophiles by imprisonment, if it is something they cannot resist doing because it is innate to their nature somehow? A little research shows that it could be true.
Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime

Recent research suggests that ... pedophilia could result from a failure in the brain to identify which environmental stimuli should provoke a sexual response. M.R.I.s of sex offenders with pedophilia show fewer of the neural pathways known as white matter in their brains. Men with pedophilia are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous, a finding that strongly suggests a neurological cause. Some findings also suggest that disturbances in neurodevelopment in utero or early childhood increase the risk of pedophilia. Studies have also shown that men with pedophilia have, on average, lower scores on tests of visual-spatial ability and verbal memory.