Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orbert]

Pedophilia isn't just adults getting off checking out pictures of naked kids; it's adults having sex with kids.  Kiddie porn, it can be argued, doesn't actually harm anyone.

I suppose that it is theoretically possible for pedophilia to occur without causing "harm" to either party, but then you have to come up with the appropriate definition for "harm" which allows it.  And I haven't seen it yet.

[StMonkey]

It's also a rather bad thing because pedophelia can never really be fully consensual. Sure, the kid may say yes, but in children, especially younger, they don't fully understand the ramifications of sex. They are too young to handle everything thats going to happen, and will just go with whatever the adult says to. In additin, it may skew their perception of sex and lead them to be a little to rampantly promiscuous. It won't hurt anyone right away (maybe), but it will set them up for risks of being much more irresponcible later.

[pi]

It's also a rather bad thing because pedophelia can never really be fully consensual. Sure, the kid may say yes, but in children, especially younger, they don't fully understand the ramifications of sex.

Like spontaneous combustion?

They are too young to handle everything thats going to happen

Yes. Catching on fire can be disheartening.

and will just go with whatever the adult says to

I have actually met kids that do not do everything they are told.

In additin, it may skew their perception of sex and lead them to be a little to rampantly promiscuous.

1. we don't know that.
2. maybe that's not a bad thing?

It won't hurt anyone right away (maybe), but it will set them up for risks of being much more irresponcible later.

speculation

edit: to clarify, I wasn't just being an asshole with the spontaneous combustion bit. My point was that if you're going to talk of terrible ramifications that emerge as a result of sex, you should probably say what they are, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.

[Johnny C]

johnny c, where are you

It was Louis Vuitton Don night, so I was doing everything that Kan' likes.

(read: spending three minutes just cheering for him while he stood on his vaguely absurd sci-fi set, basking in the applause)

It's also a rather bad thing because pedophelia can never really be fully consensual. Sure, the kid may say yes, but in children, especially younger, they don't fully understand the ramifications of sex.

Like spontaneous combustion?

They are too young to handle everything thats going to happen

Yes. Catching on fire can be disheartening.

Kid, you know this is a logical fallacy, right? You're comparing two things that aren't really similar. Besides, I'd be willing to argue that spontaneous combustion is probably not a good thing, which means that you've inadvertently argued that paedophilia is tremendously dangerous simply by suggesting that the two are alike.

And it's not a matter of "it'll set the kids up to be sluts," it's a matter of the fact that children don't necessarily understand the consequences of certain actions - sex, for example, might result in pregnancy or AIDS, and those are just physical things.

[KharBevNor]

Not if you do it in the arse.

[pi]

Kid, you know this is a logical fallacy, right? You're comparing two things that aren't really similar. Besides, I'd be willing to argue that spontaneous combustion is probably not a good thing, which means that you've inadvertently argued that paedophilia is tremendously dangerous simply by suggesting that the two are alike.

And it's not a matter of "it'll set the kids up to be sluts," it's a matter of the fact that children don't necessarily understand the consequences of certain actions - sex, for example, might result in pregnancy or AIDS, and those are just physical things.

Sport, that brings up a question of how intelligent, how mentally capable children are of understanding various concepts. I don't personally have a whole lot of experience with children, but things like pregnancy and sickness don't seem particularly overwhelming for a 6 year old, or what have you.

Both of those can be countered effectively with things like condoms and science.

Besides, it is the responsibility of an AIDS carrier to inform his/her partners of the condition.

By "Like spontaneous combustion?" I meant "As in spontaneous combustion?" There is an explanation at the bottom of the post, granted I added it just 6 mins before your post.

[Johnny C]

How are you going to explain AIDS to a six-year-old in a manner that underlines exactly how serious that disease is? I'd really like to see this because it will be interesting to see how you'll broach the subject to someone who learned to read a year previous, and possibly still has to hold hands with whoever is walking them to school.

[pi]

If you get it, you will die.

[a pack of wolves]

That's a terrible description.

A six year old might be able to grasp the idea of pregnancy, but they aren't capable of consenting to being pregnant (if that were physically possible). Not only could they not really grasp the ramifications of being pregnant (responsibility for a child, physical dangers and alterations, hormones causing changes to behaviour etc) they wouldn't be able to consent to any relationship with an adult due to the imbalance in the power relationship.

[Johnny C]

How are you going to explain AIDS to a six-year-old in a manner that underlines exactly how serious that disease is?

If you get it, you will die.

That's a terrible description.

We're supposed to give kids the credit to be able to understand the ramifications of sex, but the best you can muster for explaining AIDS is telling them that it's fatal? I really hope you can see what I'm getting at here.

[Sox]

I'm close to several people who were sexually abused as kids. All but one of them spent years in silence. All but one of them have severe trust issues. Each of them felt alone, violated, humiliated. Each of them spent most of their lives miserable because of the act itself, not the 'after the fact' stuff.

Kids are still developing both physically and mentally, and no rational, sane person would think they're ready for that kind of thing. Kids are the most fragile people in the world, handle them as if they were made of glass and treat them with the highest level of respect you can.

You're playing devil's advocate in the wrong thread. Be extremely careful what you say from here on out.

[HellStorm]

sex, for example, might result in pregnancy

I assume that by children, we're talking roughly 6 years old right?
Now how many six year olds are capable of becoming pregnant.  Also its not just small girls that get sexually abused, and I highly doubt young boys would become pregnant.

[a pack of wolves]

Why would you assume children meant roughly six? That's just one example raised of something that can result from sex anyway.

[pi]

We're supposed to give kids the credit to be able to understand the ramifications of sex, but the best you can muster for explaining AIDS is telling them that it's fatal? I really hope you can see what I'm getting at here.

That was my explanation for

a six-year-old in a manner that underlines exactly how serious that disease is

But I concede, as it's possible I'm stepping on people's toes too much here, as Sox pointed out.

[Scrambled Egg Machine]

Going back to Pi's hypothetical, let's try to establish a forum-accepted definition for the terms used, and call them the constants. Then we at least attempt to answer the damn question at the end of it.

[pi]

You're playing devil's advocate in the wrong thread. Be extremely careful what you say from here on out.

When your opening gambit is "What's So Wrong About Fucking Children" it's difficult to predict what might be in store for an encore.

Probably a violin concerto of Rush songs or something.

I was actually thinking either a discussion of the merits of the Armenian Genocide Misunderstanding or a reenactment of Vitas'[youtube] second coming of Christ.

[RedLion]

Don't get into the Armenian thing. I think I already went on a tangent about it on this forum once. I've studied Turkey's past and current politics, culture, etc., for 3 years, as part of an ongoing AP Government course my high school does that lasts for all four years. In fact, less than two months ago I was in D.C with the class, and interviewed the U.S. State Department officer responsible for Turkey, who made it clear that the official US government position is that what happened what not a genocide. Massacres, but not genocide. Armenians killed tens of thousands of Turks during that period too. No government in the world (except France) recognizes it as genocide. I also talked to the the head of the American branch of the Armenian National Bureau, who confided that "we Armenians are living on collective memory. That memory has been corrupted over the years. What many of my countrymen and expatriates say is not historically accurate." Russia was invading, the Armenians sided with Russia, took arms and supplies from them and attacked the Ottoman Turks from behind, killing at least 11,000 Ottoman troops on the eastern front. So Turkish militias were formed and attacked Armenian militias. Civilians on both sides were the losers. Think modern Iraq, but with no outside force to hold back the floodgates.

The same answer--that it was not genocide--was given by David Cuthell, Professor of Turkish and Armenian studies, at Georgetown University; Nabi Sensoy, the Ambassador of Turkey (obviously); Former American Ambassador to Turkey James H. Holmes; and even a diplomat at the British embassy. I spoke with all of these people. Let me make clear I have no vested interest in the issue, I'm not Turkish in any way, nor do I have any ties to it. But all of my research, interviews and analysis has led me to the conclusion that to call what happened a "genocide" does a disservice to instances of actual genocide--the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Cambodia. I mean, the Armenians claim that 1.5 million Armenians died. By all historical accounts, there was less than 1 million people--Kurds, Turks and Armenians combined--in eastern Ottoman Empire at that time. After WW1, 100,000 Armenians emigrated to America, and almost 200,000 across Europe, while hundreds of thousands settled in what is present day Armenia. So that claim is not numerically possible. The promotion of a genocide occurring in American and British press during that period was, frankly, propaganda against the Ottomans, who were drawn into the war on the side of Germany only because Russia invaded, largely unprovoked, so the Ottomans declared war on Russia, leading France, Britain and America to declare war on the Ottomans. A few years ago, the British government fully acknowledged that it pressured some newspapers to exaggerate and play up the story. Further, the government archives--deemed by historians to be complete and accurate, with none missing-- of the Ottoman Empire are fully accessible in Istanbul and Ankara. Armenia refuses to open its files. Why?

Oops. Did it again. If it seems like I fly off the handle on this issue, I probably do. It's extremely annoying to see people so misinformed about something that you've spent years studying. I'm sure this lengthy, off-topic diatribe will earn me some kind of reprimand or sarcastic comment. Oh well. Basically: this is the one issue where I can say that if you haven't done equivalent research, don't challenge my knowledge on it.


So! Having sex with children. Not cool.

Anyone read Lolita?

[Tom]

I think we should all ignore Pi's arguments because he quoted wikipedia, that article was probably written by a peadophile. Speaking of that I think I'll put this into wikipedia's paedophilia article.

The relationship you have with your special friend is a special secret that you can't tell anyone else about becasue they will say it is wrong and take away your special friend

[onewheelwizzard]

I think I feel safe saying that even pedophilia is something that ought to be evaluated with an eye towards context.  I can imagine situations in which applying a definition of "unquestionably wrong and evil in every way" towards an adult/child sexual relationship would have a more damaging effect on the child than the relationship itself.  I doubt that such a situation could arise in today's society without some SERIOUSLY extenuating circumstances, but I consider it possible for sure, and while I fully expect that after examining context, almost all pedophilic relationships could still be accurately defined as "wrong" or "harmful," I don't think it's a good idea to throw a blanket statement at the issue and call it over and done with.

It's an entirely theoretical and abstract point because I'd be VERY hard-pressed to come up with even a hypothetical fictional situation to support my point, but in principle I believe that the morality of something as subjective as sexuality cannot be generalized.

[pi]

No government in the world (except France) recognizes it as genocide

Really? That's odd, considering the term genocide was practically defined by citing the examples of the Simele massacre, Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide.

edit: this was a test to see if textual sarcasm can now be effectively conveyed.

Code: [Select]

Results: N
Clarifying: the following is a joke.
also, Armenian Genocide.

Even if I had no idea what happened, I would probably assume it is genocide. And, doing my best to avoid politics here, I'd say that that's probably the boat most of the US Government is in.

[schimmy]

Are you seriously using the term people frequently use to describe the event as proof of what happened? Descriptions can be inaccurate.
I have absolutely no knowledge of the event, so can't comment on it, but really, if you're going to convince anyone about your view, you're going to have to do a damned good job to be more convincing than RedLion was.

[Elizzybeth]

Getting back on topic for a bit...

I think I feel safe saying that even pedophilia is something that ought to be evaluated with an eye towards context. [...]  It's an entirely theoretical and abstract point because I'd be VERY hard-pressed to come up with even a hypothetical fictional situation to support my point, but in principle I believe that the morality of something as subjective as sexuality cannot be generalized.

Anyone read Lolita?

Actually, I would argue that Lolita is a fictional situation that comes close to supporting your point--or, at least, it's about as grey-area as this issue gets.

When Humbert Humbert meets Lolita, she's twelve years old and just barely pubescent.  Though he pursues her (he goes so far as to marry her mother to get close to her), she is not only flirtatious but actually initiates the first time they have sex (and, he points out, she wasn't even a virgin).  Later in the novel, he clearly abuses his adult power, often bribing and coercing her into sex, but I've always been a little bit conflicted over that first time.  Given, of course, that we take what H.H. says to be true, the beginning of their relationship was more than consensual.  Of course, the biggest problem with an adult / child sexual relationship is, arguably, that the adult DOES hold such power over the child, being more mature both physically and mentally; being a corrupting influence or pushing things beyond a comfort level is too easy for anything solid or sustainable to take place.

Ultimately, though, I guess it does all come back to the AOC issue: is twelve too young to consent?

[Eris]

Wasn't there a situation where a man went to court and was going to be put on a sex offender's list because he had sex with a 12-year-old? The said girl propositioned him outside a bar and even the judge recognised that she didn't look her age and unless he specifically asked her age (which he obviously didn't; even then, would she have told the truth?) it was an easy mistake to make.

So for ultimately a mistake, this guy is being put on a list which will impact on the rest of his life.


About the photos, I have had this conversation with a number of different people now, and an interesting point was brought up. Would there be this kind of controversy and uproar if Henson wasn't a middle-aged man?

[Eris]

But then look at Anne Geddes.

[jhocking]

also, Armenian Genocide.

Names are deceptive. The Holy Roman Empire was not Holy, Roman or an Empire.

Did you know North Korea's full official name is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea? It blows my mind!

[ViolentDove]

According to the Herald, Henson could face up to ten years in gaol if prosecuted successfully:

Police are expected to lay charges under a recent section of the NSW Crimes Act that covers the production, dissemination and possession of child pornography. If found guilty, the photographer could face a maximum penalty of 10 years' and the gallery owners five years' jail.

Legal experts have told the Herald that a successful prosecution before a jury under this barely tested section of the Crimes Act was highly unlikely. Those charged would be able to argue in their defence that the photographs were produced "for a genuine artistic purpose".

Regardless of the different emotional responses in the work of Anne Geddes versus Bill Henson, both depict naked children. However, I don't think either of the artists puts their models in an explicitly sexual context, and thus neither should be considered pornography. As for consent, Geddes is arguably worse, as most of her subjects can't speak.

To be honest, I think the whole Henson thing is a media beat-up, partly by conservative columnists (pretty much stemming from Miranda Devine's article on the subject, if I remember correctly- Devine is a pretty well-known conservative columist in Australia, and was one of the first to raise the issue), and partly by the gallery/artist himself, which the police responded to so as to not be made to look inept, yet again, by the media.

I doubt it'll make it to court, and if it does, Henson will almost certainly get off. 

Another hypothetical question- If the 13 year old model herself (or another 13 year old) took the shots, would that make it alright? Would there be a similar response?

[KharBevNor]

No government in the world (except France) recognizes it as genocide.

Yeah, no government except France. Oh, and Italy. And Germany. And Switzerland. And Canada. And Argentina. And Austria, Chile, Russia, Sweden, Vatican City, Poland, Uruguay, Belgium, Slovakia, Greece, Lebanon, the Netherlands and Armenia itself.



Just a massacre.

Nothing to worry about folks.

[ackblom12]

Another hypothetical question- If the 13 year old model herself (or another 13 year old) took the shots, would that make it alright? Would there be a similar response?

Actually, there's already been a case that involved that idea and the couple, who were both minors, were both charged with possession of child pornography despite their claims of not intending to sharing the pictures.

http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html

[gardenhead_]

I think we should all ignore Pi's arguments because he quoted wikipedia, that article was probably written by a peadophile.

That doesn't make it any less valid. I am not a paedophile, yet I made the same argument last page. I'm surprised at how many people are failing to address the question at hand and instead decide to jump into calling eachother names and oversimplifying everything to the point of making it look absurd (not referring to you, by the way).

[Tom]

Tommy, gardenhead_, I wasn't at all being serious when I suggested that we ignore Pi.

[KvP]

I'm close to several people who were sexually abused as kids. All but one of them spent years in silence. All but one of them have severe trust issues. Each of them felt alone, violated, humiliated. Each of them spent most of their lives miserable because of the act itself, not the 'after the fact' stuff.

Kids are still developing both physically and mentally, and no rational, sane person would think they're ready for that kind of thing. Kids are the most fragile people in the world, handle them as if they were made of glass and treat them with the highest level of respect you can.

This. There's a lot of guilty feeling involved as well. Telling their parents you were abused (unless of course they are the abusers) is the most difficult thing they will ever do. They feel guilty for failing to protect their children, and the child feels guilty for dealing such a massive emotional blow to the family. It's like shooting them in the heart. A lot of people never recover from that. Thoughts of suicide or murder of the abuser are fairly constant. It ruins you.

[David_Dovey]

Yeah, no government except France. Oh, and Italy. And Germany. And Switzerland. And Canada. And Argentina. And Austria, Chile, Russia, Sweden, Vatican City, Poland, Uruguay, Belgium, Slovakia, Greece, Lebanon, the Netherlands and Armenia itself.

So how is this post in effect any different from my (admittedly dumb, throwaway) comment invoking the Holocaust, aside from some stupid "law"?

[gardenhead_]

Tommy, gardenhead_, I wasn't at all being serious when I suggested that we ignore Pi.

sorry, my bad. sarcasm and the internet etc.

[bob, just bob]

can we please leave the Genocide think by the wayside? it had only a passing reference to the topic at hand and now it is nowhere near it. and it's quickly degenerating into pseudo-debate. that picture was pretty unnecessary and is really just there for the shock factor, and using shock tactics is not a legitimate way to win an argument, pictures as proof is a great way to help our an argument but that's not what you did no one is disputing whether it happen, just whether it happened on the scale that it did, and that picture did nothing to prove that it happened on the scale that your arguing for.

anyways...
back to the topic at hand... there is something to be said for the "after the fact" nature of emotional and mental damage, I'm not saying that damage isn't caused by the act itself, it's a horribly traumatic experience and it can cause horrible repercussions in the person's life. but I also think that even more damage can be caused by society freaking these poor children out over how damaged they were, some kids can get over this and get through it but when everyone around its telling them that "no your not dealing with it your just repressing everything get it all out" then they start to think well maybe I am really fucked up when in reality they were dealing with it fine.

[Eris]

What does the Genocide have to do with paedophilia, anyway? Was it a massacre of paedophiles? Was it ordered by a paedophile? Was there a large surge of paedophiles about after it finished? Where is the link?

[Spluff]

Back on topic, news today reported that one of the models was approached by the police, in the hope that she would help their case, but she declined (apparently she said something about how she had no problem with the photos).

[David_Dovey]

What does the Genocide have to do with paedophilia, anyway? Was it a massacre of paedophiles? Was it ordered by a paedophile? Was there a large surge of paedophiles about after it finished? Where is the link?

Someone made a very very passing reference to it and then someone else posted a gigantic block of text about it, then other people commented on that block of text. It might almost be worth separating all of that out to another thread, if said thread wasn't almost guaranteed to become a shit-storm within half a page.

[jhocking]

This is only vaguely relevant, but this news makes me happy and I don't know where else to post it:
http://www.caedefensefund.org/

Steven Kurtz is an artist who was indicted by the US government four years ago. The FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force detained him on the day of his wife's funeral. Finally, last week a federal judge dismissed the charges. yay!

[David_Dovey]

Steven Kurtz.

Scott Kurtz is the webcomic artist.

[jhocking]

durr thanks fixed

[StMonkey]

In some support of how reactions to a problem can effect a child more than the problem can, I've seen this happen multiple times in front of my very own eyes. I was a student trainer in high school, which is basically a student that helps with some of the minor medical issues given to the Athletic trainer by, well, atheletes. Anyway, one of the days I was there it was a couple of rather weak-stomached girls and I, and it was a kids day, meaning children from roughly 8 or 9 on up were there. Well as it turns out, one of the eights year olds somehow managed to impale himself upon one of the machines with his leg. There was a maybe 3 inch wide, very clean cut(as opposed to jagged, like when you fall off your bike) on his leg. It hit a spot on his leg where there is a lot of fatty tissue, and as such, some was, well, poking out. When the kid got there, he was brought in by one of the high school coaches, who had kept calm and collected, and so the kid, taking his cue, entered the room with nary a whimper. As soon as the squemish student trainers saw the cut, they, to put it bluntly, freaked. I'm pretty sure one of them actually screeched. Anyway, immediately, once the little kid saw the girls making a big hullabaloo over his cut, he began to cry. Not just singe tear, I'm talking bawling. I had to round up the rest of the trainers and explain what they just did while the Athletic trainer and coach tried to calm the kid back down. Now this was a dramatic change in the child, a complete 180.

Yeah, the kid was hurt, but because of how the coach dealt with it, he kept it under control and remained calm. But once someone else went OMG THATS THE MOST HORRIBLEST EVARRR!! He went nuts. So I'd say yeah, reaction to a situation can drastically change the way a child views it

[Sox]

Being sexually abused is not comparable to cutting your leg open. One is an accidental injury, one is a prolonged, violent, humiliating attack. Due to how different the two situations are, I don't think it's a valid argument to compare the impact of people's reactions after the event. People are going to react differently to a bit of gore to how they'd react to the knowledge of somebody being sexually abused.

The more I think about, the more that's pretty ridiculous. There aren't many things that draw a fair comparison to being sexually abused. I just think it's fair to say that sex with children is morally abhorrent under the vast majority of circumstances, much like torture, the act of wearing green on red, and 80s music production.

[schimmy]

Moreover, it occurs to me that the two situations aren't directly comparable for another reason. Or, it's not so much that they're not comparable, but the conclusion that negative reactions to a situation can make it work is somewhat innacurate.
Since the claim appears to be that therapy and the like are what sometimes cause the damage to children, and not the actual act of sexual abuse, then a more direct comparison would be, to take a lead from StMonkey's example, the injured child's wound being totally ignored for fear of him crying. Now, sure, this might have the benefit of in the short term apparently helping because the child isn't crying, it ignores the main problem of the wound that being bleeding, and infection and the like.
So, looking at it this way, it seems that if you were to compare the two, the conclusion I would draw is that while perhaps giving a child therapy and forcing them to talk about sexual abuse they have suffered might in the short term appear to be a bad thing, in the long run it might very well be the best thing that can be done.
Speaking from my own experience, (and I should stress that I have absolutely no experience of sexual abuse, so I don't know if the two situations are emotionally close enough to be compared) every time I get upset about something, I don't want to talk about it, because that means dealing with it, and that means I will inevitably be upset by it. But, you know what? That happens regardless of whether you actively deal with it or not, I get upset by something more, and for longer periods of time, if I don't talk about it to someone than if I do, and I'm willing to bet that's the same for most, if not all people.
Obviously the way someone else reacts to something that has happened to you will affect what you think about it, but a reaction is still necessary, I think. If a child is sexually abused, then for obvious reasons you shouldn't immediately scream in their face "OH MY GOD, THAT'S AWFUL YOU MUST BE SO UPSET, YOUR LIFE IS OVER!" but you should also not ignore it entirely. Therapy, as I understand it, is about the patient talking about what bothers them, not the therapist telling them what should be bothering them.

[bob, just bob]

I agree whole heartedly I'd never argue that it's best to say nothing to them about it, just that many times the  (mostly justified) horrified reactions of the parents and loved ones around the abused person probably really don't help, they don't need to be told about how horrible it was and how their life is over, they are already thinking that enough on their own.
but so often is that the reaction the person gets, when really they need support and comments like " it's ok you'll get through this" and " we're here for you" and sure the person gets those of course, but only after a few minutes of "OH JESUS" comments, and this is a generalization. there are exceptions of course. I juts thought I'd bring up the fact that a lot of damage can be caused by the reactions and comments of those around the person, especially in a young child who doesn't really know what's going on, and when it finally comes out they just see everyone freak out, having everyone raise such a huge fuss about it could cause an extreme amount of pain to say a 6 year old? maybe not as much as the abuse but a decent amount to be sure.
 
how old exactly were the kids? 12-13? I think that's the age were these kids really start to become aware of what's going on, and while posing for nude photos is kind of a large step to take to explore this newfound world, I don't think it's totally wrong especially since these kids had their parents consent. think about it if these kids parents were aware of what was going on and were behind the project. the kids have probably been raised in an environment that would allow them to better understand that what they were doing is art. again a generalization but one with at least a little merit I think.

[pi]

Since the claim appears to be that therapy and the like are what sometimes cause the damage to children, and not the actual act of sexual abuse, then a more direct comparison would be, to take a lead from StMonkey's example, the injured child's wound being totally ignored for fear of him crying.

If we're to ignore Sox's stance that this is an invalid analogy, from StMonkey's example, I would conclude that the medical professional's actions were fine. It is the uninformed public acting on impulse/emotion, treating the target as if they're damaged more than they really are, that causes the [other] damage.

[muffy]

^ Whilst the leg injury analogy was possibly not the best, it did make a valid point: The initial reaction of horror after something like that happens can be nearly as damaging as the event in terms of later repurcussions, as Bob said rather well - this is the thing that will grow with the child into a feeling of self-disgust, inadequacy as a human being, and, even if they're too young to understand it at the time, a feeling that they're tainted and somehow less of a person as someone who hasn't been abused. For a 7 year old child, for example, to have their mother be too upset to cuddle them or to be able to look at them after an event...that's going to leave some intense emotional scarring. To have people whisper and speculate about how terrible it must have been isn't going to help a whole lot either*, and neither is a press debacle obsessing over paedophilia.
 
That's not to say 'ignore the problem and pretend it never happened' - that only creates a whole bunch of issues even more deep rooted than the first - self doubt in the strongest sense of the phrase as a starter - the only benefit being that the child in question may be able to deal with the repurcussions at a time in their life when they're more emotionally equipped to do so. It won't erase it from that child's mind, though - it'll manifest itself in all sorts of ways that the person won't understand. Schimmy made the point well - it should be the patient talking about what affects them, and not the other way round. Unfortunately, not all therapists subscribe to the same methods, and when it comes to child psychology, there is a much greater risk of the child having their viewpoint on events skewed by opinions of what the therapist expects them to be feeling.

This is where my issue with the press's obsession with all things paedophilia related comes in: a child goes through that, they go through hell. What they are then faced with, at every point in their life whilst dealing with this, is daily witch hunts against possible perpetrators, a constant reminder of what they went through, and the constant buzzing of hacks who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag salivating at a scandal.

To call it cheapening is misleading - to call it damaging would be more accurate. An artist takes pictures of children: it represents something, and the interpretation is, as with most art, down to the observer. Yes, there are tasteless images in abundance, and yes, there are cases wherein the artist is trying to make a statement which may be hurtful to some, provocative to others, but what the press does is jump on it, scream blue murder and effectively hack into incredibly sensitive issues that demand tact and a little thought.

If the mainstream press were to conduct itself similarly to this thread, that is to say with well thought out debates on the matter, a lot of thought and no metaphorical excrement throwing, then artists presenting their work would be met with a fair audience, fair praise and fair criticism. What it receives instead is people looking for the most degenerate parts of human nature and proclamations of 'evil' where such statements aren't due, and the matter of the art in question being dragged through the lowest common denominator of judgement. It's there to be viewed in context, not to a backdrop of hysterical obsessing over paedophillia.

(*I think this is possibly why I reacted the way I did to the earlier posts in the thread regarding life being worth living after sexual abuse - largely because after a person has gone through this, that is a question that has a tendency to raise itself all too often - and this is in no way a dig or an attempt to revive what is a spent and resolved debate, because the points that were made were extremely relevant and well thought out, and I respect them - think of this statement more as an explanation. And at no point did I interpret the comments as 'person x thinks person y should be dead'. Just to clarify.)

[Barmymoo]

Sorry to resurrect a semi-dead thread but I was interested to see your reactions to this news story and it didn't seem like a good idea to start a new topic.

Although I don't believe child pornography is a good idea, I also don't believe that giving people the power to decide what is and isn't appropriate for the internet is necessarily a good idea either. The article doesn't say whether they will only block sites which condone child pornography, or whether they will also try to shut down sites if people put something up (like an inappropriate image on here, for example).

Anyway sorry again for necroing this thread.

[waterloosunset]

as disgusyting as child pornography is, i dont think censorship is the way forward. to easy to abuse and extend. with all these new surveillance devices and tracking stuff, surely the police can locate the people who upload it all and arrest them, cutting it off at the source

[Orbert]

Agreed.  Shooting the messenger iis not the way to address the problem.  Putting the onus on the ISPs when all they're doing is providing a service is stupid.  It's like all that extra time-wasting security the airlines were required to add, at their own expense, because all the federal terrorism-fighting money was being spent on the military.  The government has no idea where the problem lies or how to deal with it.