Virtual child is trapping online pedophiles [NSFW} (youtube.com)

videos

9323 ups - 6891 downs = 2432 votes

2316 comments submitted at 15:47:14 on Nov 4, 2013 by thenewyorkgod

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 8 Points
  • 17:01:43, 4 November

How about instead of trying to trap them and put them in jail we use the same technology to give them a safe outlet for their sexuality? It's not like it's their fault that their sexual orientation is not viable in society, the least we could do is work with them to find practical solutions instead of treating them like pariahs and/or burning them alive in the streets.

edit: Instead of downvoting me how about engaging in the conversation and telling me why I'm wrong?

  • [-]
  • sometruthtobetold
  • 15 Points
  • 19:26:43, 4 November

I do agree some of this technology could be use as a safe outlet, but that doesn't mean what they are doing is shouldn't be done.

I didn't downvote you, but I'm just explaining why I think you are getting downvoted. The word "instead" implies that you think it would be better to do what you are proposing than what they are doing.

In that particular case, I don't agree with you. That's coming from someone who is attracted to younger girls if that matters.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 2 Points
  • 19:32:43, 4 November

If adult porn was banned tomorrow, both real and virtual, I know I would be pretty frustrated. Then if they made sex with adults illegal on top of banning all adult porn I would have a really hard time (no pun intended) navigating society and keeping within the law.

And that's exactly what we are doing to pedophiles, since we obviously can't make it legal to have sex with children or legal to produce child pornography using actual children at the very LEAST we should make it legal for virtual child pornography to be produced or to allow really young looking but adult porn actors to engage in roleplay style videos.

  • [-]
  • sometruthtobetold
  • 5 Points
  • 20:18:48, 4 November

I understood what you meant, and I continue to agree, this technology should be used as a safe outlet.

My problem is with your "instead". If adult pornography were to be banned, would you rape someone? I know it's a dumb comparison (no offense). Cause if it were to be banned you could still find "illegal hookers" or something. Adults can't be so easily manipulated and abused as children.

Abusing children still wrong, even facing the fact that the situation is not ideal. It's like saying we shouldn't charge people for stealling food, instead, we should solve starvation.

>allow really young looking but adult porn actors to engage in roleplay style videos.

Is that ilegal in the USA? (I'm assuming you are from there)

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 3 Points
  • 20:47:06, 4 November

I was only meaning "instead" to refer to this specific instance, this specific situation involving them putting so much effort into trapping these guys with a "GOTCHA" child avatar when that same sort of effort could have been spent actually addressing the issue, in this very specific case.

  • [-]
  • Gioware
  • 3 Points
  • 22:46:57, 4 November

yeah right and get burned for "helping pedos" when they can be "heroes" that catch pedos

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • 42 Points
  • 17:07:10, 4 November

They act on their impulses though. They do not seek help.

Edit: By they, I mean the people in the video. I'm not talking about every person who's attracted to children. There are many people struggling with pedophilia who control their urges. The people in the video however have already exploited and abused innocent children.

  • [-]
  • mysterious_skin
  • 20 Points
  • 17:23:10, 4 November

You only hear about the ones that act on impulses

  • [-]
  • gblancag
  • 3 Points
  • 19:13:11, 4 November

I find this an interesting comment coming from someone who's username references a book/movie about the trauma of childhood sexual abuse.

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • 2 Points
  • 17:25:34, 4 November

Of course you do, why would you hear about people who don't? There's people who struggle with pedophilia and don't act on their urges because they know it's wrong.

  • [-]
  • SteveC12410
  • 3 Points
  • 23:52:41, 4 November

Logically speaking most of us are wired evolutionarily to like younger women. Pre pubescent is unnaturally young for a grown man to be attracted to, and that's a problem, but 13, 14 is a natural age of attraction. I was 14 about 6 years ago (years fly by), I know what I can and can not do, but the truth is I still find them just as attractive as I did when I was that age. It's only bad for me to act upon my urges partially because of maturity, but mostly because of the social rules of today. But if you look back in history you'll see a ton of famous pedos. Now everyone's just afraid to admit that they're attracted to someone under 18. Why is it that we see lot of people go to hustler barely a legal clubs in some places? They wanna go as low as they can go right?

EDIT: I believe Elvis was a pedophile. Too lazy to look into it.

  • [-]
  • Saganomics
  • 0 Points
  • 01:37:58, 5 November

I believe you're a paedophile. Too lazy to look into it.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • -3 Points
  • 18:44:19, 4 November

How is it wrong? When exactly did you choose to be attracted to adult women/men?

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • -1 Points
  • 18:48:20, 4 November

Having sex with an underage child who doesn't know any better is most definitely wrong...

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • -1 Points
  • 18:52:29, 4 November

Don't change the subject, I asked you when you chose to be attracted to women/men. I did not ask you if you had ever had sex.

  • [-]
  • Saerain
  • 3 Points
  • 19:28:06, 4 November

I think you might've misunderstood Tostido's comment. To emphasize:

>There's people who struggle with pedophilia and don't act on their urges because they know it's wrong.

By specifying "act on their urges", I believe they are talking about enacting sexual abuse, not the simply experiencing a paraphilia.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 1 Points
  • 19:40:00, 4 November

That's not the part I was trying to clarify. It was the implication that pedophiles and child molesters were the exact same group. Which is like saying that hetrosexuals and rapists are the same group of people. It makes no sense and only helps reinforce harmful stereotypes. As if it's somehow "wrong" to be a pedophile.

  • [-]
  • Saerain
  • 3 Points
  • 20:46:21, 4 November

I agree, but I don't see that /u/Tostido was making that mistake. But I suppose I may have missed other posts by the same user that you've seen.

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • 1 Points
  • 19:08:29, 4 November

What are you talking about? I'm not saying they chose to have their urges? I'm saying you hear about the people who act on their urges to have sex with children.....

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 2 Points
  • 19:14:40, 4 November

Precisely, pedophilia is not right or wrong, it's simply a way a person is. People who abuse children are clearly performing a wrong action. You were using the two interchangeably that's why I commented.

  • [-]
  • Cheddarwurst
  • 1 Points
  • 19:17:27, 4 November

No, what he said was they "don't act on their urges because they know it's wrong." you clearly misinterpreted what they said.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • MyUnsernameIsTooLon
  • 1 Points
  • 19:19:53, 4 November

and this only punishes those who act on their impulses.

  • [-]
  • mattbluesman
  • 17 Points
  • 19:55:12, 4 November

Wanna give a quick guess why they don't seek help?

It's because society as a whole has evolved to become a hive-mind of hate for anyone who's mental predisposition for who they should be attracted to happens to not line up with the rest of the people.

They are seriously afraid of coming out as a pedophile.

  • [-]
  • carlmango11
  • 1 Points
  • 23:13:06, 4 November

While I don't have a solution to the problem I always did find it unsettling that the vast majority of people are, and are proud of being, absolutely repulsed and hateful of paedophiles that don't act on their urges.

Honestly, what's the difference between being a paedophile and being gay, only for the fact that gay people can find consenting adults? It's hardly as if they chose to be attracted to children. I genuinely feel sorry for paedophiles who wouldn't ever act on their desires.

When I hear people talking about paedophiles as if they're sub-human I can't help but draw a comparison to decades ago when people would say the same about gays. Nowadays we wouldn't dream of that and most would find it hard to understand how such a mentality could exist. Well there you go, it still does.

And again, I'm talking solely about paedophiles who don't watch child porn etc.

  • [-]
  • Elhaym
  • 3 Points
  • 02:01:41, 5 November

It's different because a homosexual has an urge to do something that is not harmful.

If I knew a person who had strong urges to brutally murder and rape people, I would be cautious around that person, even if he had never given into those urges.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 4 Points
  • 17:16:27, 4 November

That's a gross generalization. If a person was attracted to children and never acted on their impulses then you would never be aware of it would you? So your perception that "they act on their impulses" it's just a product of your limited information.

And do you really think the ones who seek help are going to walk up to you and tell you all about their personal struggles?

Get your head out of your fucking ass and try to think before you make a fool of yourself.

(by the way: This is the part where you accuse me of being a pedophile for daring to defend a group of people I think are getting the shaft.)

  • [-]
  • frankfurtor
  • 11 Points
  • 17:22:26, 4 November

I think the idea is that a responsible person who has these urges will avoid looking at this because it to some degree causes harm to a child.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 2 Points
  • 17:40:25, 4 November

Exactly, and we could drastically cut down on the number of real children that were being harmed if we had enough common sense to get over our "eww that is creepy" reaction and let these folks view all the virtual child porn they want to.

I'm trying to look at it from their perspective instead of just putting my fingers in my ears and pretending that this is not a real problem that might have practical solutions.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -2 Points
  • 19:17:17, 4 November

> Exactly, and we could drastically cut down on the number of real children that were being harmed if we had enough common sense to get over our "eww that is creepy" reaction and let these folks view all the virtual child porn they want to.

This idea has no basis in reality whatsoever. There is droves of child pornography, both virtual and real, available on the internet with virtually zero chance of being caught. Has access to this material lessoned child abuse? No. Viewing child porn does not decrease acts of sexual abuse. The exact opposite is true.

  • [-]
  • Principincible
  • 2 Points
  • 23:29:43, 4 November

You're wrong. source

  • [-]
  • tghyy
  • 0 Points
  • 00:09:17, 5 November

The studies on that page actually seem all over the place.

  • [-]
  • Principincible
  • 3 Points
  • 00:42:40, 5 November

exactly.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 0 Points
  • 23:58:17, 4 November

You do realize that every other study on that page reports the opposite finding right?

  • [-]
  • Principincible
  • 3 Points
  • 00:18:59, 5 November

>The exact opposite is true.

You make it sound like a fact when it is not.

"A range of research has been conducted examining the link between viewing child pornography and perpetration of child sexual abuse, and much disagreement persists regarding whether a causal connection has been established."

You're wrong.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -2 Points
  • 00:22:29, 5 November

The correlation is well established. So no, I'm not wrong.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 0 Points
  • 19:26:47, 4 November

I'm talking about virtual porn, not real child porn, what you are suggesting is sick.

  • [-]
  • BoheefusJr
  • 3 Points
  • 22:56:34, 4 November

So what you're suggesting is that if we give these pedophiles a virtual outlet they will never try to molest a real child ever? What kind of fucked up logic is that? That is like offering a serial killer virtual people to kill Sooner or later they will no longer consider a virtual victim enough to satisfy their urges and attempt to go out and have the real thing. We have laws for a reason and trying to justify their urges by placating them with virtual victims only delays the problem, not rid it at all.

  • [-]
  • everdayforevr
  • 0 Points
  • 00:25:24, 5 November

So let's take your logic. We take two people and let them play a shooter game. One is a serial killer satisfying his urge to kill in the game, while the other just really like shooter games. Well, after your logic everyone who plays that shooter game will eventually go out and kill someone, not just the serial killer, but the casual player.

  • [-]
  • BoheefusJr
  • 2 Points
  • 01:01:15, 5 November

uhm...what?? One is a serial killer...gotcha. The other is a regular joe who like shooter games...gotcha. The difference is the serial killer gets off on killing people and will eventually do it in real life whereas the non-serial killer...won't because he's not a fucking serial killer. Giving people who are sick an outlet for their sickness like virtual children to molest or virtual people to kill isn't an answer. They WILL eventually tire of the fake and need the real.

  • [-]
  • Velvetroses
  • 2 Points
  • 01:07:46, 5 November

If someone has a pre-existing urge then YES someone could very well escalate beyond a simple "game". Someone who is actively seeking child pornographic materials, like some other fetish interested people(take that the way I mean it), will most likely end up escalating to a true encounter for their "compulsion".

Just like someone who has an urge to hurt animals, or maybe hurt people might go to "shooter games", as was mentioned, and then escalate to a true attack.

I find this very topic incredibly disturbing that it's even considered to make some virtual child for people to diddle on the net as a "Game". Shame on this. Should be a no brainer.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 0 Points
  • 19:28:48, 4 November

I specifically mentioned virtual porn, smart guy.

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • 12 Points
  • 17:23:01, 4 November

No, i'm saying the people going on these sites have no intention of getting help. There are pedophiles who have urges but do not act on them. They don't need to tell the whole fucking world that they're attracted to kids, they need to see a medical professional if their urges are taking over. These people however have already taken advantage of and abused innocent children. They've committed horrible crimes and should be punished. Stop getting so defensive.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 0 Points
  • 17:34:58, 4 November

> They act on their impulses though. They do not seek help.

Then a few minutes later:

> There are pedophiles who have urges but do not act on them.

Well done, that's a much better way to phrase it. Lets be fair, these guys are spanking it to virtual children, I would much rather they do that then go to the local playground. If we had even an ounce of common sense we would make virtual child pornography freely and anonymously available to any people who wanted to view it so we could cut back on ACTUAL children being harmed. But instead we ban it and then wonder why these people get so frustrated with their urges that they snap and hurt children.

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • 0 Points
  • 17:38:41, 4 November

I worded it wrong and I fixed it. I feel though that making virtual child pornography legal will not fix the problem. It may help a few people but not all. When you watch porn you want to watch real people, not an animated character right? It would be the same thing with pedophiles. It may hold some over for awhile but they'll most likely still want the real thing. I'm not saying all people will act on it and i'm certain a majority don't. But there's still the ones who do act on it and they need to be punished for their crimes.

  • [-]
  • Revlis-TK421
  • 2 Points
  • 21:58:47, 4 November

The hentai lovers of the world would disagree with you....

Note: Not particularly into hentai myself, usually because they frequently deal with topics I'm not into (monster/rape, demon/rape, alien/rape. Note the re-occurring theme?)

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 2 Points
  • 17:49:21, 4 November

Did I suggest that it would completely fix the problem? I am just saying that it might help a few, maybe more than a few. There are numerous studies that suggest that when pornography is easily available sex crimes rates drop across the board.

One of many: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • 1 Points
  • 17:52:54, 4 November

No I know, that's why I said it will help a few. I think we need to focus on fixing the problem though. Finding ways to make it harder for people to exploit children like this and to get people help before their urges take over. I know the last part is extremely difficult because most people find it hard to open up to others and to seek help.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 1 Points
  • 17:57:59, 4 November

Totally agree with you there. I know it's creepy to think about but I think one way would be to make this stuff available in a way that hurts zero children and maybe lets these people vent the 'ol pressure valve. As part of a wider multi pronged set of solutions of course!

If it was illegal to have sex with adult women and then they made virtual adult porn illegal too I would be extremely pissed off and frustrated.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 0 Points
  • 18:00:44, 4 November

[deleted]

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Unconfidence
  • 1 Points
  • 18:11:42, 4 November

As someone with chronic depression and suicidal tendencies, I can tell you, the help of "medical professionals" is limited by your wallet in most places. If you're someone like this, and don't have money, your choices are to suck it up, or do something illegal enough to land you a jail sentence, and get treatment in prison. So, even the people who don't want to act on this stuff would end up in prison to get treatment anyway. Not exactly the best situation to put people who have these urges into.

  • [-]
  • Tostido
  • 4 Points
  • 18:14:21, 4 November

True, that's why we need to make an effort to make things affordable for people who genuinely need help, no matter what the issue is.

  • [-]
  • Unconfidence
  • 1 Points
  • 18:45:29, 4 November

And when we succeed in that, "seek the help of a medical professional" will be a good alternative to suggest. Until we do, it's just passing the buck. It's like telling someone who is broke and hungry to go buy some food. It's not like these people wouldn't go see someone given the chance, they can't in many if not most cases.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 29 Points
  • 17:33:16, 4 November

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 81 Points
  • 17:53:24, 4 November

You are confusing pedophiles and child molesters. One is a descriptor for a sexual orientation the other is for people who rape children.

I'm a straight male, does that automatically mean that I rape women when I see them? Of course not, get your head out of your ass.

  • [-]
  • DayOfDingus
  • -8 Points
  • 21:06:02, 4 November

It is not a sexual orientation to be attracted to children. I don't have a different sexual orientation if I'm attracted to older women as opposed to women the same age as me.

While being a pedophile is not necessarily a crime it is extremely unhealthy and dangerous. It is akin to constantly having thoughts of rape or murder.

  • [-]
  • DasWraithist
  • 17 Points
  • 21:24:58, 4 November

> It is akin to constantly having thoughts of rape

You mean a sexual fantasy that consistently ranks among the top three most common for both men and women?

I think you just proved his point...

Fantasies and desires cannot be immoral. Actions can be.

  • [-]
  • RockDrill
  • -1 Points
  • 23:57:40, 4 November

So, actions like paying for kids to have sex over a cam?

  • [-]
  • DayOfDingus
  • -6 Points
  • 21:52:42, 4 November

The fuck? Rape fantasies in the form of roleplay and actually wanting to rape someone are two entirely different things. If you're actually thinking about raping your next door neighbor or something, although its not illegal it certainly is fucked up.

I get it, thoughts are not as bad as actions, thats fucking obvious. I still think that having thoughts like molesting children and murdering people are bad, whats so hard to understand about that?

  • [-]
  • DasWraithist
  • 6 Points
  • 21:58:49, 4 November

> I get it, thoughts are not as bad as actions, thats fucking obvious.

Uhh, no, you clearly don't get it. At all. Thoughts, which affect no one, aren't "not as bad as actions," they aren't bad or good at all. They are morally neutral.

  • [-]
  • DayOfDingus
  • 1 Points
  • 22:11:31, 4 November

In a way you are correct, thoughts by themselves cannot hurt anyone. However thoughts do not occur in some bubble that prevents them from affecting actions as they are the cause of every action we take.

If someone constantly has thoughts of having sex with children and suddenly one day they find a lost child with no one else around what do you think they're going to do? They may not follow through with their thoughts, but the chances of them having sex with the child are infinitely higher than someone who doesn't have these thoughts.

  • [-]
  • Polterghost
  • -1 Points
  • 00:43:45, 5 November

I disagree that fantasies and desires cannot be immoral. If you have a thought about raping someone (for example) and would act upon it if it weren't for society's laws, then it's immoral.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 1 Points
  • 21:11:05, 4 November

I'm aware that the term has limitations, if you have a better one I'm all ears.

My point is that they are born with a particular attraction, any one of us could have been born the same way and then had to figure out how to live our lives without a single way to relieve our sexual desires.

It would be like me being born into a society that banned sex with adults, banned pornography with adults and banned virtual pornography with adults. Then if I even hinted to someone that I was sexually attracted to adults I would risk my friends, job, family, and probably even my life.

  • [-]
  • DayOfDingus
  • 4 Points
  • 21:56:47, 4 November

Yeah see I was born with this innate desire to fuck dead prostitutes. I mean its societies fault I can't be comfortable in my own skin, why can't they just accept me?

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 0 Points
  • 22:03:10, 4 November

Whatever floats your boat, but you have to find them that way you can't actually kill them yourself.

  • [-]
  • Degausser616
  • -8 Points
  • 20:54:21, 4 November

Sexual orientations are not fucking age dependent, you sick fuck.

  • [-]
  • daxron
  • 5 Points
  • 22:40:55, 4 November

That's why 40 yr old woman are just as popular in porn as 18 yr old woman.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 3 Points
  • 21:03:03, 4 November

Okay so when did you choose to be attracted to adults?

  • [-]
  • Degausser616
  • 2 Points
  • 21:09:40, 4 November

I didn't, because orientation is not fucking age dependent.

Gender identity and presentation, or the lack thereof, are the basis of orientation (And to a lesser extent, physical sex). If you're attracted to a gender, chances are you're going to find sexually maturing members of that gender attractive, you have to wait until they're legally of age because a baseline needs to exist. If you're attracted to them before they're entering sexual maturity, you're a sick fuck who is victimizing children with your gaze and thoughts.

Stop trying to piggyback your disgusting shit on the LGBT movement by throwing around the word "orientation", you disgusting pedophile apologist.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 3 Points
  • 21:15:00, 4 November

You are confusing pedophiles and child molesters, how are you not grasping this simple concept?

  • [-]
  • Degausser616
  • 1 Points
  • 21:18:12, 4 November

No, I'm not. You're saying being attracted to children is an orientation. We're not talking about abusing them.

ORIENTATION IS NOT FUCKING AGE DEPENDENT.

>Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender.

  • [-]
  • carlmango11
  • 4 Points
  • 23:19:35, 4 November

Ok well then don't use the word orientation. Let's go with "the types of people you are attracted to sexually".

  • [-]
  • Degausser616
  • -3 Points
  • 00:22:00, 5 November

And if one of those 'types' is children, you're a sick fuck who victimizes children with your sexual thoughts.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • -1 Points
  • 21:32:19, 4 November

You are focused on the word "orientation" too hard here, try to stop being a buffoon for just a moment and understand the point I'm trying to make using words that are not perfect fits for the concepts I'm trying to get across.

  • [-]
  • tghyy
  • 3 Points
  • 00:17:06, 5 November

Its probably interesting to note that we actually don't have the words. Rather than try to analyze and define it as an issue, its just taboo/witch hunt .

  • [-]
  • Degausser616
  • -1 Points
  • 00:19:13, 5 November

The point you're trying to make is one of pedophile apologia, so I don't give a shit.

You're a sick fuck.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Mein_Tarnaccount
  • 15 Points
  • 17:42:04, 4 November

But feeling the urge to do it isn't.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -10 Points
  • 17:44:37, 4 November

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • Mein_Tarnaccount
  • 15 Points
  • 17:45:40, 4 November

Exactly. So why vilify them instead of helping them?

  • [-]
  • theReno
  • 7 Points
  • 17:57:02, 4 November

Are you implying that someone is "mentally ill" because that someone is not in control of what arouses her/him?

Are you in control of what arouses you? At what point in your life did you choose that a particular circumstance would trigger your sexual desires?

  • [-]
  • ledgenskill
  • 2 Points
  • 18:49:34, 4 November

Saying its a mental illness is saying being homosexual is a mental illness because they're attracted to guys and not girls.

  • [-]
  • MarcusWilliamsII
  • 0 Points
  • 19:54:35, 4 November

Actions can be stopped. What other people think is none of your business. You are not the thought police.

  • [-]
  • menstreusel
  • -16 Points
  • 17:50:07, 4 November

These people need therapy. Or they should feel human and so fucking ashamed of their mental illness that they should buy a bullet and rent a gun to take care of the problem themselves.

  • [-]
  • UbiDubiumIbiLibertas
  • 2 Points
  • 00:05:45, 5 November

Careful dude, I almost cut myself on all that edge.

  • [-]
  • sometimesijustdont
  • 0 Points
  • 22:47:55, 4 November

Wait, you figured out how to stick your dick through the Internet?

  • [-]
  • DaftPunk_Glasto
  • 4 Points
  • 20:10:03, 4 November

Because its not a valid act, you talk about it being a 'sexual orientation', instead of talking about it being an act which is the abuse of children. Letting people keep it up as if its ok...jesus...do you want kids to be scared on the streets??

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 2 Points
  • 20:50:10, 4 November

You are missing the point, I'm not saying they should be allowed to abuse children I'm saying we should be open to thinking of ways where they could satisfy the desires in a safe way (like legalizing virtual child pornography) I'm WELL aware that this is a sensitive issue and creeps people out but we are adults here, we can talk about it civilly and bounce around ideas can't we?

  • [-]
  • AltHypo
  • 4 Points
  • 20:21:24, 4 November

Yeah I can only imagine the alternative for these dudes is flying to the Philippines to get a real child prostitute or pulling a kid off the street for real. I mean by comparison webcamming them isn't so bad. Maybe creating a VR pedo wonderland would help curb those impulses by giving them an outlet, since from what I read many of them are filled with guilt and shame and really don't want to hurt anyone but fear they can't control their urges.

  • [-]
  • ThisFigLeafWontWork
  • 7 Points
  • 18:33:08, 4 November

Not sure why everyone is downvoting you for having an on topic comment attempting to start a discussion. Upvote, sorry for your luck.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 2 Points
  • 18:57:56, 4 November

Thanks lol, I kind of expected it given the subject matter. It's extremely difficult to word constructive replies and avoid the dreaded "how can you defend child RAPE!!!????" responses.

  • [-]
  • Gioware
  • 2 Points
  • 22:32:32, 4 November

It is scaring how low I had to scroll to find rational comment. It is considered disorder. People need help not fucking punishment. God damn reddit is turning into dumb mob.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -1 Points
  • 18:09:13, 4 November

>How about instead of trying to trap them and put them in jail we use the same technology to give them a safe outlet for their sexuality?

What are you talking about? People who privately indulge deviant sexual desires are more likely to eventually move on to the real thing than people who are prevented from doing so. The idea that if people have a "safe outlet" for their perversions it will somehow make them less dangerous in real life is utterly without merit. I don't even understand why this is such a persistent idea when it is so obviously wrong. Does viewing traditional porn make you view women less as sexual objects? No, of course it doesn't. If anything it makes you more likely to view them as sexual objects. Every red blooded male who's ever looked at porn knows this yet you still hear this argument trotted out all the time.

  • [-]
  • UbiDubiumIbiLibertas
  • 4 Points
  • 00:11:56, 5 November

Actually, there is evidence for a sexual "safe outlet" being effective.

  • [-]
  • paleo_dragon
  • 3 Points
  • 23:33:32, 4 November

Rape jumps substantially in countries where porn (in any form) is illegal. Humans need outlets for their primal desires.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -2 Points
  • 23:55:27, 4 November

Porn prevents rape. Haha, that's a new one.

  • [-]
  • DoneStupid
  • 1 Points
  • 00:56:55, 5 November

Actually it's not new at all: http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf

There's one paper for your pleasure on the very subject.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 1 Points
  • 01:07:26, 5 November

Yeah, I was making fun of you. FYI law profs are poor resources for scientific data.

  • [-]
  • DoneStupid
  • 1 Points
  • 01:11:59, 5 November

You're a lot dumber than I thought, I can also assume you didnt actually open or read the paper.... nevermind.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 0 Points
  • 01:20:40, 5 November

Yeah, I looked at it. Law prof looks at data showing that rape went down over the same period that access to porn went up. Completely ignores that fact that violence of all kinds went down across that same period and concludes that rape went down because of porn. Really brilliant.

  • [-]
  • MarcusWilliamsII
  • 8 Points
  • 19:58:36, 4 November

You cannot prevent people from indulging in their sexual desires, no matter how deviant you deem them to be. Even prisoners will masturbate to these thoughts and images. Trying to change one's sexual orientation is not possible, and trying to suppress it does not work either.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -4 Points
  • 20:02:14, 4 November

Neat, how is that relevant?

  • [-]
  • MarcusWilliamsII
  • 5 Points
  • 21:17:54, 4 November

...therefore, pedophiles should be given a safe outlet for their desires. At the very least, they should not be persecuted for reading fiction and viewing drawings of this content, which has been made illegal in many countries due to your flawed reasoning.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -6 Points
  • 21:35:40, 4 November

The word 'therefore' usually comes after an argument, not an observation. You've given no reason why pedophiles should be given "safe outlet." I've already given reasons why they shouldn't and though you've called my reasoning flawed you given no argument for why it might be. As it stands consuming child pornography, fictional or otherwise, is correlated with child abuse. It is absolutely not correlated with a decrease in child abuse as OP would have us believe. So there is no reason to believe that allowing pedophiles a safe outlet for child porn would lesson instances of real abuse and good reason to believe it would actually increase them.

  • [-]
  • Saskei
  • 0 Points
  • 01:58:18, 5 November

Not if you take away their arms.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • -3 Points
  • 18:18:39, 4 November

Put yourself in their shoes. (I'm going to write this from the perspective of a heterosexual male who likes adult women, if that's not you then shift the wording accordingly)

Imagine that having sex with adult women was made illegal tomorrow and then the next day they made pornography containing adult women illegal too, then on the third day they made even virtual porn containing adult women illegal. That would be pretty frustrating wouldn't it? You can't have sex legally, you can't look at porn with real people legally and you can't even look at porn with virtual people legally. Sounds crappy right? Tough luck you sexual deviant.

That's what we have done to people who are born with sexual attraction to humans under the age of 18, we think it's creepy so we shut off any and all ways for them to find a way to find a safe outlet. They are not the monsters, we are.

  • [-]
  • honestFeedback
  • 2 Points
  • 00:16:12, 5 November

I understand what you're trying to say. I'm thankful I like adults in suspenders and not young kids. But at some point you draw the line and say that this is not acceptable.

Can a serial killer help being a serial killer? In some cases not. But we say to them - tough shit - I'm sorry that's how you are wired but your behaviour is not acceptable to our society - you must for the good of all, be locked away.

Same for active pedos. And we are talking active pedos here. They are abusing kids. We're not reading minds and hunting down potential abusers - these people are finding active child abusers and reporting them.

And look - I've had massive sex droughts in my life. I didn't need somebody to provide me an outlet to prevent me going out and raping.

  • [-]
  • DoneStupid
  • 1 Points
  • 00:58:12, 5 November

Are you saying you've never looked at porn?

  • [-]
  • honestFeedback
  • 1 Points
  • 01:00:05, 5 November

> Are you saying you've never looked at porn?

Nope. I've seen porn. Are you suggesting you can make kiddie porn without child abuse?

  • [-]
  • DoneStupid
  • 1 Points
  • 01:09:34, 5 November

If the people in the video can trick guys in to thinking they're watching a real girl then we can't be too far off?

  • [-]
  • McFearIess
  • 5 Points
  • 19:52:12, 4 November

That example has no goddaamn merit, these are innocent kids we're talking about, not adult women. You can't fucking compare the two. An adult woman can gave real/legal consent.

Virtual child porn would only ever make pedophilia a more accepted thing, which would only ever make more child molesters(differentiating the two so pedo-apologists will understand)

Pedophilia is one sided act. It doesn't deserve a safe outlet when kids will suffer.

  • [-]
  • DasWraithist
  • 3 Points
  • 21:37:41, 4 November

> Pedophilia is one sided act.

Pedophilia isn't an act.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • -1 Points
  • 20:05:59, 4 November

Actually we find the exact opposite to be the case. If you want to find countries with low rates of sex crime look for the ones that allow free/easy access to pornography. Obviously since children can't consent to being in porn so it would have to be virtual but the same principal applies. Banning virtual child porn does not solve the issue, it makes it worse.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 8 Points
  • 18:57:27, 4 November

It's got nothing to do with legality, it's abuse. And what's your point? Life as a pedophile is hard? So fucking what. You can apply that exact same logic to literally any antisocial act. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone because they desire to harm other people and they don't have a "safe outlet" to do so. That's beside the fact that there is not such thing as a sexual "outlet" in the first place, which you totally ignored from my first post.

  • [-]
  • rexington_
  • 2 Points
  • 01:08:35, 5 November

There's no harm in jerking off (masturbation is a sexual release, a.k.a. outlet) to a cartoon, story, or computer generated image. It is entirely victimless.

>People who privately indulge deviant sexual desires are more likely to eventually move on to the real thing than people who are prevented from doing so.

I don't think so. Got a source?

  • [-]
  • MarcusWilliamsII
  • 0 Points
  • 20:00:08, 4 November

Pedophilia is not an "antisocial act". In fact, it is not an act at all, nor is it a crime.

  • [-]
  • firechao
  • 5 Points
  • 00:41:40, 5 November

Definitions, downvoters. Paedophilia is the attraction.

  • [-]
  • AppleDane
  • 4 Points
  • 01:37:30, 5 November

You can be a law abiding paedophile. Most people will ever know if you are. The crime is child abuse. If you don't abuse children, you're not a criminal.

It's abnormal, yes, and (arguably) a sickness, but so is a lot of "-philias".

  • [-]
  • _venkman
  • -4 Points
  • 01:33:33, 5 November

That's arguing semantics.

  • [-]
  • mynewaccount_420
  • 1 Points
  • 02:09:43, 5 November

Being an alcoholic isn't illegal, nor is someone who is born an alcoholic bad. They still need to control their alcoholism, if they are drunk in public/driving drunk or any alcohol related crime, they are guilty of that crime.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • -6 Points
  • 19:05:38, 4 November

It's not an "antisocial act" it's a sexual orientation, a creepy one to most of us admittedly, but my point was to illustrate what it might be like from their perspective.

You want to treat it like it's some sort of choice on their part to have the attractions they do. Tell me, when did you choose to be attracted to adults?

  • [-]
  • Dreadniah
  • 4 Points
  • 20:02:39, 4 November

It is an antisocial act based on a sexual preference. They aren't mutually exclusive.

  • [-]
  • internet_weasel_stud
  • 1 Points
  • 23:05:07, 4 November

Harboring fantasies of raping children is a pretty god damn antisocial act.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -7 Points
  • 19:35:20, 4 November

It is not a sexual orientation, and choice is completely irrelevant.

  • [-]
  • Dreadniah
  • 9 Points
  • 20:01:50, 4 November

It's a sexual orientation/preference in the same way that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Pedophiles prefer prepubescent children exclusively or near exclusively. However unlike homosexuality, pedophilia is also considered a psychiatric disorder because engaging in pedophilic sexual acts causes harm (and subsequently is illegal).

Choice is completely relevant because the fact that pedophiles do not choose their attraction means that through science and counseling we may be able to effectively stop this harmful behavior.

Alternative solutions that will help us stop child abuse are being rejected without thought because people are too concerned with being self satisfied fighting the good fight and trying to be "tough on pedophilia" as though meaningful discussion of prevention strategies makes them a pedophile or means they want pedophiles to do whatever they want.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -1 Points
  • 20:11:20, 4 November

It is a preference, not an orientation. Using a slash between them does not make them the same word.

Actually, the fact that it isn't a choice makes it much less likely that can be treated beyond depressing the libido entirely.

>Alternative solutions that will help us stop child abuse are being rejected without thought

This thread is full of people arguing to normalize pedophilia. I don't see anyone promoting any solutions beyond "let pedophiles look at porn" which is an completely meritless idea for lessoning child abuse.

  • [-]
  • UbiDubiumIbiLibertas
  • 3 Points
  • 00:20:23, 5 November

I don't think it's an attempt to normalize as much as it is a distaste for overreaction, and a subsequent overreaction on their part.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 3 Points
  • 19:43:18, 4 November

How is a sexual orientation not a sexual orientation? You are not making any sense.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • -4 Points
  • 19:46:34, 4 November

Do you know what the word sexual orientation means? It describes your attraction to the different sexes, not their age. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation any more than chubby chasing is.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • -3 Points
  • 20:08:48, 4 November

I'm well aware that the term is not a perfect fit but clearly you understood when I was talking about, I call that a win.

  • [-]
  • internet_weasel_stud
  • -2 Points
  • 22:15:59, 4 November

It's not a perfect term because it's completely incorrect.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • 0thatguy
  • -3 Points
  • 22:39:19, 4 November

This is not true. Sexual orientation is who you are sexually attracted to, not always either male or female.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 3 Points
  • 23:02:58, 4 November

According to no dictionary.

  • [-]
  • dick_inspector
  • -1 Points
  • 22:47:44, 4 November

This. I agree 100%. Are we supposed to feel like "Oh, poor pedophiles. It's so sad for them. " a child can NEVER consent because they have no idea what sex is.

  • [-]
  • theguyisaguy
  • 1 Points
  • 01:29:49, 5 November

>Imagine that having sex with adult women was made illegal tomorrow and then the next day they made pornography containing adult women illegal too, then on the third day they made even virtual porn containing adult women illegal. That would be pretty frustrating wouldn't it?

The difference between (adult) women and kids is that ADULT WOMEN CAN FUCKING GIVE CONSENT.

  • [-]
  • MrFatalistic
  • 1 Points
  • 00:56:13, 5 November

Where'd you get the viewpoint that watching adult porn makes you objectify women, yes, porn is a commodity that is paid for, but that doesn't make it objectification, but I'm guessing you're a little too far on that path to see otherwise.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 0 Points
  • 01:09:19, 5 November

When you view pornography you are looking at the woman as a sexual object. Arguing otherwise is ridiculous.

  • [-]
  • MrFatalistic
  • 1 Points
  • 01:29:33, 5 November

Can't argue with the fempire, all are guilty until found further guilty.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 1 Points
  • 01:31:46, 5 November

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Are you masturbating to her personality?

  • [-]
  • MrFatalistic
  • 1 Points
  • 01:37:27, 5 November

Personal attack now? Go back to SRS demon

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 0 Points
  • 01:46:39, 5 November

What personal attack? I'm asking you a question, genius. People masturbate when they look at porn. That's what it's for. You claim that when looking at pornography you are not objectifying the woman. If the woman's body (an object) is not what you watch porn for then what do you watch porn for? Do you masturbate to the dialog? The plot line? Her personality or something else?

  • [-]
  • theguyisaguy
  • 1 Points
  • 01:29:01, 5 November

>What are you talking about? People who privately indulge deviant sexual desires are more likely to eventually move on to the real thing than people who are prevented from doing so.

That guy ( /u/iliketacostacos ) is probably a closet paedo himself...

  • [-]
  • Not_pretending
  • 1 Points
  • 02:11:46, 5 November

>People who privately indulge deviant sexual desires are more likely to eventually move on to the real thing than people who are prevented from doing so.

This is a wild accusation with no basis in reality, do you have a source for this claim?

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 1 Points
  • 02:18:12, 5 November

does no one read the thread before posting?

  • [-]
  • iwishdrewwasfatstill
  • 1 Points
  • 22:13:12, 4 November

> People who privately indulge deviant sexual desires are more likely to eventually move on to the real thing than people who are prevented from doing so.

What's your proof of this actually being the case? In Japan, simulated rape and simulated 'violent' porn are some of the highest watched in the porn realm, yet they have one of the lowest rate of sex assaults in the world. So it appears that "people divulging deviant sexual desires" does not always lead to said desire.

  • [-]
  • iliketacostacos
  • 1 Points
  • 22:43:36, 4 November

Here's a few studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationshipbetweenchildpornographyandchildsexual_abuse

Comparing sex crime statistics across cultures is going to be problematic because there will be differences in both what is considered a crime and in reporting rates.

  • [-]
  • fat_genius
  • 1 Points
  • 22:42:28, 4 November

> The idea that if people have a "safe outlet" for their perversions it will somehow make them less dangerous in real life is utterly without merit. I don't even understand why this is such a persistent idea when it is so obviously wrong.

Just curious if you have any evidence for your stance. Also, does it apply the same way for other behaviors (e.g., do karate lessons exacerbate violent tendencies)?

  • [-]
  • I_fight_demons
  • 1 Points
  • 18:55:08, 4 November

One reason for the downvotes may be that your post can be read to mean that the Huff Po article is about an actual pedophile, which it is not.

  • [-]
  • fat_genius
  • 1 Points
  • 22:51:03, 4 November

I'm curious about the concept of out-letting versus repression for undesirable behavior, not just in the realm of sexuality but also in violence, addiction, and health.

Do you know of any research evidence on the topic?

  • [-]
  • adonkers
  • 0 Points
  • 23:59:53, 4 November

It's true that their sexual orientation isn't their fault, but honestly, the world would be a far better place if pedophiles were chemically castrated. Although if you're a pedophile you should just kill yourself and save everyone else the trouble.

  • [-]
  • nevnim
  • 1 Points
  • 01:07:09, 5 November

I like your perspective. In Japan a new problem is the quality of alternative sex resources is decreasing demand for sex which is decreasing the birth rate. Obviously there is some correlation here. Reading the responses it's amazing how people feel they are able to compute mathematical probabilities by sheer power of morals.

  • [-]
  • ghettojapedo
  • 1 Points
  • 01:11:26, 5 November

Nah nah nah. These guys are insane in the head. Realll messed up.

They need professional mental help.

  • [-]
  • lucas-hanson
  • 1 Points
  • 01:18:41, 5 November

Such avenues already exist. Their intent is to use a real child.

  • [-]
  • Nuuky
  • 0 Points
  • 19:54:06, 4 November

I feel like I read before that watching virtual or fake child pornography actually makes the user more likely to molest children.

  • [-]
  • runswithpaper
  • 6 Points
  • 20:01:23, 4 November

It's exactly opposite. And it applies to adult porn as well. Countries that outright ban pornography have significantly higher rates of sex crimes. (it's not a direct causal relationship but an indicator, there are many factors at play)

  • [-]
  • Nuuky
  • 2 Points
  • 20:03:42, 4 November

Well I still can not present a source :D, but I think the only reason for countries to ban fake child pornography is that it increases the chances that the consumer becomes more likely to molest a chilg.

  • [-]
  • adam_e
  • 0 Points
  • 17:37:43, 4 November

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104011/rightful-persecution

  • [-]
  • Hellkyte
  • 0 Points
  • 19:10:51, 4 November

Catharsis doesn't work

  • [-]
  • Akolyte01
  • 5 Points
  • 22:49:50, 4 November

Catharsis as it applies to anger and other such emotions doesn't work.

Sexual arousal is very notably different. People do weird fucking shit when they're horny. I think it's certainly possible a non-exploitative outlet for pedophiles might prevent actual exploitation.

  • [-]
  • mazer__rackham
  • -1 Points
  • 22:42:39, 4 November

Prepared for the avalanche of downvotes, but... I want to present another viewpoint...

I'm alarmed that it's such a commonly held view in this sub that distributing free and open child pornography will somehow provide an "outlet" for deviant behaviors and it will stop there.

I think pornography (of all kinds) only heightens the symptoms of what is really the root cause: humans objectifying other humans. Even "regular" adults-watching-other-adults perform sex acts leads to a desensitization of healthy, real relationships. The partner on the screen requires no sacrifice, is open to anything, and is always satisfied when the viewer is finished. Porn creates an illusory relationship that, over time, can cloud its consumers idea of what is a healthy sexual relationship.

I'm not saying that banning pornography will solve this problem, but I am ready to argue that making pedo-porn widely accessible would make this problem much worse.

Please, if anyone is on the fence about porn, feel free to PM me. Open to discuss anything.

  • [-]
  • stevenamazing
  • 1 Points
  • 02:20:29, 5 November

Isn't the argument that making child pornography or virtual child pornography widely available will result in wider use and abuse of children, the same as that used for the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs? That argument is lampooned when presented in that context.

  • [-]
  • 0thatguy
  • -8 Points
  • 22:37:21, 4 November

You.. are fucked up, man. You're supporting these MONSTERS? I wouldn't be surprised if YOU were a pedophile yourself! You scare me. You genuinely scare me.

  • [-]
  • reallyuninspiredname
  • 0 Points
  • 20:53:04, 4 November

Sure. I'm all for not burning them in the streets. But what does this video have to do at all with that? It's about catching offenders.

But jailing them, finding the people that are likely to offend or that have already, I'm A-O-FUCKING-K with. I had to see the face of the older boy who held me down and did what he did. I have to be the adult with the scars on my sexuality because of what he did. I have had my outlook on life changed on a fundamental level, making it extremely difficult for me to get along with people of my own gender because of the abuse.

I'm ok with teaching people about acceptable sexuality (your choice of which gender you want to have consensual sex with is acceptable, your fetish, as long as it doesn't harm others, is acceptable) and letting them know what types aren't (non-consensual sex, sex with minors, rape, etc) and the punishments for them. If sexuality is talked about openly and honestly, you may be able to identify people with the proclivities you wish to prevent and work with them, not to condone their outlets, but to provide help.

That being said, offenders? Fuck. Them. Go straight to prison. That shit is not acceptable, and it somewhat offends me that you think the person who abused me had zero control over their actions and should NOT be jailed because of that? He wouldn't be "getting the shaft", that was me, literally "getting the shaft" at 6 fucking years old. I may be straw manning a bit there, but you have to understand what your position would sound like to someone who was actually abused.

  • [-]
  • chjones994
  • -5 Points
  • 21:05:16, 4 November

> burning them alive in the streets

That actually a good idea. They earned it.

  • [-]
  • daxron
  • 2 Points
  • 22:43:01, 4 November

Except of course for the guy who didn't deserve it, wasn't not a pedo at all but still got beat to death. But whats a feel innocent people getting burned to death if it means redditors get to run around with pitch forks.