My gf is nitpicking the law on me over possible child porn

jasmin wrote:

Nanook wrote:
Girls and boys have been sexually attractive for about 2 million years. It's basically the cause of large brains in humans, civilization, and childhood stage of development itself. Hot bods, sparkling personalities, good sense of humor.

Fascinating. Keep telling people it's normal and healthy to be attracted to kids and you're out. You can start your own thread where you can talk about your feelings, but please don't go around the forum saying this crap.

Some pretty wild claims there, Nanook. Or at least the way you back up your claim. That said, I don't think it's tactful to come onto the Paraphilias forum, Jasmin, and dismiss someone's point of view as crap and (by implication, based on the words you use in your first sentence) abnormal and unhealthy. There are many paedophiles on this board looking to come to terms with their situation, and presumably the aim of this forum is to provide them with support. In view of the number of adult heterosexual men thought to be attracted to pre-pubescent children, I would contest your dismissal of Nanook's assertion as 'crap'. I'm not convinced by the way he argues it, based as it is on sweeping generalization and personal taste, but with the greatest of respect I don't feel your response is any better; surely moderation is about keeping the peace and ensuring nobody encourages illegal activity rather than steaming in with threats to ban people purely because you don't agree with what they say? I feel that the support we (collectively) should offer paedophiles and those with other paraphilias on these boards should consist not only of advice coming from those also distressed by the same condition (whether as sufferers or the victim's perspective), professionals and 'uninvolved' third parties, but also of advice from those who have the same paraphilia but are not distressed by it. Ebullient as it is, Nanook's message is 'don't beat yourself up about what you're into', and that is a healthy message, because I'm sure the last thing society wants is for all paedophiles to be distressed to the point of divorcing themselves from the moral code of a society that hates them.

Superaycomfort, I actually think people look older in photos/on film than they do in real life, but this may be a product of the application of make-up and lighting. Camera angles play a part; photographers often shoot their subject from about the subject's chest height, creating the impression of him/her being slightly taller than you. I do agree that women in so-called 'teen' porn can often be in their twenties (or maybe are 18/19 but look older for the above reasons). If it's this kind of stuff you're looking at, I'm pretty sure your girlfriend wouldn't mistake them for minors. Some (perfectly legal) porn does cater for guys (and girls) into the younger teen look - braces, pyjama parties, small breasts, etc. Is this what you're talking about? Because if it is, then I can understand that your girlfriend may be confused.

GinaSmith wrote:Ebullient as it is, Nanook's message is 'don't beat yourself up about what you're into', and that is a healthy message, because I'm sure the last thing society wants is for all paedophiles to be distressed to the point of divorcing themselves from the moral code of a society that hates them.

Yeah ah, erm, *cough*, that's where things start getting dangerous.
So I think we ALL have a part to play, in taking responsibility to avoid people "resigning" from society.

However, I think the views of Dan1966 and Nanook represent two opposite sides of the same coin.
"This is my attitude to the issue and you should have it too end of story".
I think neither view is helpful.

GinaSmith wrote:Some (perfectly legal) porn does cater for guys (and girls) into the younger teen look - braces, pyjama parties, small breasts, etc. Is this what you're talking about? Because if it is, then I can understand that your girlfriend may be confused.

There have been cases of people been dragged to court because they had porn where the adult actors "looked" prepubescent.
If the girls were flat as a board, then yeah I don't think it's the law which concerns superray's girlfriend.

Maybe he should just put on some grannyporn and politely ask if that was better.

GinaSmith wrote:
Some pretty wild claims there, Nanook. Or at least the way you back up your claim. That said, I don't think it's tactful to come onto the Paraphilias forum, Jasmin, and dismiss someone's point of view as crap and (by implication, based on the words you use in your first sentence) abnormal and unhealthy. There are many paedophiles on this board looking to come to terms with their situation, and presumably the aim of this forum is to provide them with support. In view of the number of adult heterosexual men thought to be attracted to pre-pubescent children, I would contest your dismissal of Nanook's assertion as 'crap'. I'm not convinced by the way he argues it, based as it is on sweeping generalization and personal taste, but with the greatest of respect I don't feel your response is any better; surely moderation is about keeping the peace and ensuring nobody encourages illegal activity rather than steaming in with threats to ban people purely because you don't agree with what they say? I feel that the support we (collectively) should offer paedophiles and those with other paraphilias on these boards should consist not only of advice coming from those also distressed by the same condition (whether as sufferers or the victim's perspective), professionals and 'uninvolved' third parties, but also of advice from those who have the same paraphilia but are not distressed by it. Ebullient as it is, Nanook's message is 'don't beat yourself up about what you're into', and that is a healthy message, because I'm sure the last thing society wants is for all paedophiles to be distressed to the point of divorcing themselves from the moral code of a society that hates them.

Pedophiles are capable of empathy and rational thinking, being rejected by society isn't enough reason to abuse and rejecting the moral code of a society that hates them means that it was never their moral code too. This forum is for support and advice, sure, but that sometimes means that we have to challenge someone's point of view, if it could lead to harmful things. Convincing someone that it's merely society that says that sex with kids is wrong and that it's not actually harmful but it's in fact healthy and normal could lead someone to abusing children.
I don't see why we should pretend that we have to discourage people from doing anything illegal simply because it's illegal and not because it's wrong.
I don't want to harass people here, but like I said, encouraging or dismissing harmful views (not feelings) should be challenged if we want the people who come here to get healthier.
By crap I was referring to what Nanook was saying about civilization, large brains in humans etc. And I'd really rather not be presented with a nice study that confirms Nanook's views.
We've got forums for Personality Disorders too, where people have views that can lead to abuse or justifying it and it's never easy to manage those forums either. A balance between letting people talk about their feelings, nature and urges and not allowing the forums to become overrun with them to the point where no one tries to show/talk about how they're wrong has to be found.

Hi Jasmin,

Thanks for your reply. Some fair points there, but I'd like to respond to a couple of them if I may.

jasmin wrote:This forum is for support and advice, sure, but that sometimes means that we have to challenge someone's point of view, if it could lead to harmful things. Convincing someone that it's merely society that says that sex with kids is wrong and that it's not actually harmful but it's in fact healthy and normal could lead someone to abusing children.

I agree that we should be prepared to challenge ideas in the name of support. Much as I can understand that Nanook's position would seem (to many) overly jovial, all he has said is that being attracted to children is normal; he's not advocating sex between adults and children, so nobody can accuse him of doing so (sorry to talk about you in the third person, Nanook).

As an aside, and based on my own conception of what morality is, I can't see how 'right' and 'wrong' are anything but an aggregate of social principles, sometimes tacitly agreed but less tacitly enforced. I'm not religious, so I find it hard to conceive of a moral code whose origins are external to humanity/culture. Anyway, that's a big discussion and I broach it here merely because philosophy is one of my big likes.

jasmin wrote:I don't see why we should pretend that we have to discourage people from doing anything illegal simply because it's illegal and not because it's wrong.

That's perfectly fair. If we blindly adhered to laws without remaining critical of any 'right' or 'wrong' underlying them then that wouldn't say much for us as people. With that in mind, it's good to have our views challenged. I don't agree with Dan's homophobic views and, though I agree with Nanook's assertion (that attraction to children is normal), I don't agree with the way he grounds that assertion and I find it a little cavalier, but I'm of the opinion that to be truly tolerant one has to be tolerant of intolerance. (Not saying that I live up to that ideal, but I aspire to!)

jasmin wrote:I don't want to harass people here, but like I said, encouraging or dismissing harmful views (not feelings) should be challenged if we want the people who come here to get healthier.

True, but it works both ways. If we accept challenging views as a good thing, but only allow that principle for views that we deem to be right, then isn't that merely orthodoxy in disguise? Besides, a view is often a feeling 'rationalised' rather than some perfectly objective, a priori calculation.

jasmin wrote:By crap I was referring to what Nanook was saying about civilization, large brains in humans etc. And I'd really rather not be presented with a nice study that confirms Nanook's views.

I think his statements are rather sweeping and probably hard to found on anything concrete (at least the historical claims). That said, I don't share your aversion to being presented with a study. I think once we shut ourselves off to science we risk becoming very blinkered indeed.

jasmin wrote:We've got forums for Personality Disorders too, where people have views that can lead to abuse or justifying it and it's never easy to manage those forums either. A balance between letting people talk about their feelings, nature and urges and not allowing the forums to become overrun with them to the point where no one tries to show/talk about how they're wrong has to be found.

I think that's perfectly fair where there is incitement or encouragement to act in an illegal manner. I disagree that this applies here, however, as what Nanook has said is that there's nothing wrong with being attracted to children. In other words, it's paedophilia he's saying is 'OK', not child abuse. If one disagrees, then one dismisses the condition as wrong (I think you're framework was predominantly a moral one, so here read: morally wrong), which by analogy with the personality disorders situation would be tantamount to telling those sufferers that their condition is morally wrong.

jasmin wrote:A balance between letting people talk about their feelings, nature and urges and not allowing the forums to become overrun with them to the point where no one tries to show/talk about how they're wrong [...].

If I may be allowed to quote something twice... I wonder about this sentiment, because it's a paraphilias forum, so naturally it will be 'overrun' with people who have a paraphilia and who want to 'talk about their feelings, nature and urges'. I presume when you say 'they're wrong' you are referring to the 'feelings, nature and urges'. Personally I think people should be judged only on their actions, so I find it difficult to consider feelings and urges as wrong or right. Besides, I'm not sure there's ever a shortage of people lining up to tell paraphiliacs (particularly paedophiles) how 'wrong' they are, but I can understand the desire for balance.

GinaSmith wrote:Some pretty wild claims there, Nanook. ... In view of the number of adult heterosexual men thought to be attracted to pre-pubescent children, I would contest your dismissal of Nanook's assertion as 'crap'.

Thanks for your words GinaSmith.

I've read a lot of history, psych, and anthro now too, so I see that being attracted to children is the norm in just about every culture... ours too. The law is pretty clear in black and white. So, what's the problem? I'm cool with who I am; I'm cool with my feelings; people like me; and support groups like this have let me realize there are millions of people who feel exactly the same. Yeah, I guess someone might feel upset when a supposedly despised and inferior people are not acting sad and scared like they're supposed too. For me, the terror-storm is over. I got no shame about being a normal, healthy, law abiding human... why would I? Peace.

jasmin wrote:Convincing someone that it's merely society that says that sex with kids is wrong and that it's not actually harmful but it's in fact healthy and normal could lead someone to abusing children.
I don't see why we should pretend that we have to discourage people from doing anything illegal simply because it's illegal and not because it's wrong.

I don't see why we should pretend that something is harmful to discourage people from doing something that is merely wrong. As some prominent authors have said, lack of harmfulness does not mean lack of wrongfulness. In fact, more harmful is removing hope from people who have been sexually abused that they may not have to suffer greatly or for a long time.

GinaSmith wrote:Hi Jasmin,

Thanks for your reply. Some fair points there, but I'd like to respond to a couple of them if I may.

I agree that we should be prepared to challenge ideas in the name of support. Much as I can understand that Nanook's position would seem (to many) overly jovial, all he has said is that being attracted to children is normal; he's not advocating sex between adults and children, so nobody can accuse him of doing so (sorry to talk about you in the third person, Nanook).

As an aside, and based on my own conception of what morality is, I can't see how 'right' and 'wrong' are anything but an aggregate of social principles, sometimes tacitly agreed but less tacitly enforced. I'm not religious, so I find it hard to conceive of a moral code whose origins are external to humanity/culture. Anyway, that's a big discussion and I broach it here merely because philosophy is one of my big likes.

If being attracted to children is normal, why shouldn't he advocate sex between adults and children? Do you know what normal means? It doesn't necessarily mean "the norm" as in "everyone feels that way", on a mental health support forum, "normal" means "healthy". Unless you don't think this is a mental illness, I don't see how you can think that feeling sexually attracted to children is normal. And since this is a mental health support forum, what would you or he be doing here if you didn't think this is a mental illness?

Since our society holds that sexual attraction to kids is wrong (unhealthy) and people get their concepts of right and wrong from society, how is it possible that you and so many others disagree? Didn't you also get your sense of right and wrong from the same society?
Do you think people get their sense of right and wrong from society only when it suits you? People can either think for themselves or they can't.

GinaSmith wrote:

True, but it works both ways. If we accept challenging views as a good thing, but only allow that principle for views that we deem to be right, then isn't that merely orthodoxy in disguise? Besides, a view is often a feeling 'rationalised' rather than some perfectly objective, a priori calculation.

I invited Nanook to talk about his views and feelings in his own thread. Anyone is also free to challenge my views, of course, that's why I'm replying to you. I don't see what you mean by "but only allow that principle for views that we deem to be right". I allow people to challenge me just like I challenge people.

GinaSmith wrote:
I think that's perfectly fair where there is incitement or encouragement to act in an illegal manner. I disagree that this applies here, however, as what Nanook has said is that there's nothing wrong with being attracted to children. In other words, it's paedophilia he's saying is 'OK', not child abuse. If one disagrees, then one dismisses the condition as wrong (I think you're framework was predominantly a moral one, so here read: morally wrong), which by analogy with the personality disorders situation would be tantamount to telling those sufferers that their condition is morally wrong.

I have never said that any mental illness is morally wrong. When I said "they are wrong", I was referring to the people. If an NPD woman comes to the NPD forum saying how she knows people think NPD is a problem but she thinks it's perfectly ok, normal and healthy to view people as she views them, her views should be challenged and it should be pointed out how behaving according to the way she feels will cause harm. Obviously, people can't change over night and they can't change because of this forum either, probably, but no one should be expected to just ignore the problem. And besides, like I said, pedophilia isn't a personality disorder and pedophiles are capable of empathy so they should be even more aware of how people would get hurt if they were to act on their impulses or feelings.

GinaSmith wrote:
I think his statements are rather sweeping and probably hard to found on anything concrete (at least the historical claims). That said, I don't share your aversion to being presented with a study. I think once we shut ourselves off to science we risk becoming very blinkered indeed.

Science is based on logic, right? Now, I don't know everything about the scientific method, but I'm sure you'll find it's perfectly logical and "scientific", even, to trust that most of the scientific community is right or that they'll change their opinion as well as the information they share with people, once they're presented with compelling evidence. I'm pretty sure anyone could find some study about how their views are right and there's a conspiracy to silence the people who came to the same conclusion. It could be about sex with kids, sex with animals or even something unrelated to this like homeopathic remedies curing cancer. We could argue about it over the internet and keep bringing links and sites into the discussion about how the other person is wrong until we're blue in the face. That's not how someone should form an opinion.

Shrink Rap wrote:I don't see why we should pretend that something is harmful to discourage people from doing something that is merely wrong. As some prominent authors have said, lack of harmfulness does not mean lack of wrongfulness. In fact, more harmful is removing hope from people who have been sexually abused that they may not have to suffer greatly or for a long time.

Something can be wrong only if it's harmful.
Then for how long are people who have been sexually abused going to suffer?

Wow. Just... wow.

Where to begin, indeed.

@Gina, I think I'll let you take a shot at Jasmin's post first.

It's ok, Alevi, you can reply too. I don't feel overwhelmed and feel free to be honest. If I said something that doesn't appear to make sense, I'll be happy to explain what I meant.
Edit: Ok, just in case of more confusion, in the second paragraph of my reply, when I said that society thinks pedophilia is "wrong", I think it would have been more appropriate for me to say "bad", so that it won't be confused with morally wrong. I only meant it as in "unhealthy". I'm sure people think that pedophiles who have never abused are morally corrupt too, but I don't.