Advertisements

  • Advertisement
Photobucket
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog

EngageDigital

« Novotar: The Diver is Missing... | Main | Traffic Report »

May 20, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cfe069e200d83545096c53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Pedophiles Are Responsible:

Comments

Aleister Kronos

Thanks Proky. A clear, lucid and well-argued piece. It has certainly helped me clarify my thinking.

dandellion kimban

Age-play and child pornography ( http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/age-play-vs-child-porn ) are not the same. First involves no minors. That is important distinction. Question if there is leaking from imagined age-play in real life child abuse is the big one. But, though there are psychologysts that will claim both extremes, mayority is to say that it is not necessery. It is the same question as if cartoon violence promote RL violence. And "magic circles" you mention can (but not necesserily do) exist in all cases, from shooting to child abuse.

Another thing that is of importance is whether and how the code is law. ( http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/code-is-law ) The story of tekkie-totallitarians is just a buzz. Code is law to one extent. In virtual worlds code is natural law, not social one. And, you will agree, there is a difference between laws of nature and laws of society.

Why these two things are important? Because blurring the lines lead to one really nasty thing no one wants to see: totallitarian metaverse. Once we allow peeking inside our heads to search there for the crime we are in society that admits there is a thought-crime, we are in nazi society. And that is the reason why not a single democratic society is not punishing for something that is thought of or even spoken of but not actually commited. It is a huge pity so many people red Orwel's 1984 as a critique of communism just in the light of actual politics of western vs. Soviet society. We all neglect that today such distopya is to be achieved by mass media who are scaring us by age-players, terrorism, lunatics who shoot people without conciveable reason... in one word by making an atmosphere of fear.

It sounds like irony, but I would recomend a bit of role-playing on one of sims with dystopian theme, Suffugium or any other, just to feel what happens when security is put over the freedom.

Chris Peterson

Prokofy, you know I enjoy poking fun as your bombastic conspiratorial prose.

But this was by far the best coverage I've seen this issue given yet. I tried to give Mitch Wagner a good description of Jailbait! but you did a better one with Yongchong.

So good work, and I hope this gets picked up.

Nina Andrews

The idea of ageplay is so revolting it leads us to make bizarre conclusions about the whole thing.

There is as much opportunity for a person to emulate violent behaviour from a game in real life as there is from sexual behaviour. How can we differentiate between the behaviours?

We're all hypocrites that allow depraved violence and rape in our games yet get all morally upset at child abuse.

BLueRibbon

Could you please explain how virtual "child porn" harms children?

dandellion kimban

"There is as much opportunity for a person to emulate violent behaviour from a game in real life as there is from sexual behaviour. How can we differentiate between the behaviours?"

Easily. Some things are happening in REAL and some in VIRTUAL. Can you differentiate real from virtual?

anonymoose

That's a good and important point that more decision-makers need to heed. It's wrong to blame children for the choices adults make to act on pedophiliac impulses. Pedophiles are the only ones making adult choices. You can dress up Joan-Binet any way you like, it's still not a consenting adult. But the problem is more in how we define a child and an adult.

Much of our popular culture has started to slide toward the argument that children are in some subconscious way purposefully acting as sexualized beings, and therefore inadvertently shoulder the responsibility of interacting on a "natural" social level of enticement towards adults. In cases where children are promiscuous they are blamed for their inappropriate attempts at intimacy with an adult. The problem is that it is the adult's responsibility to teach the child what is appropriate. It's called parenting, and it does take effort and sometimes causes conflict with the child. That doesn't make the child wrong for emulating behaviors they see on television and responding to the cues that are shown to get the attention of adults.

The line is blurred around the teenage years when sexuality finally does become a visible part of physiology. Men seeking underage young adults from age sixteen on are just expected to tread lightly because of the lack of experience of the young adult. But their attraction is seen as somewhat normal based upon the forgivable fact that teenagers physically begin to look like adults. The problem there is that looking like and adult and thinking like an adult are two different criteria.

In their early experiments of social boundaries, which do occur, young children do and will ask inappropriate things from adults. Every parent has eventually had to tell a child who reaches a certain age that parts of the parent's body are now off limits for blind grabbing ahold, or that walking in on the bathroom before knocking is inappropriate. That's just called being a child who lacks experience, and it's not something children are ever going to suddenly spring from the womb able to follow on their own. The idea is that if you have parented your child all along, they aren't going to remain confused about what's inappropriate for long.

I would argue that those same adults claiming children "entice" them as a form of seeking out intimate attention often preemptively introduce children to sexuality "accidentally" and then wait for the child to become naturally curious or eventually just worn down from all the adult exposure and passive-aggressive encouragement to seek out and join the adult in these behaviors. Leaving the bathroom door open, or the bedroom door, or placing explicit magazines on the counter. A certain amount of behavior modification towards curiosity often are attempted, so that the manipulation of the child occurs without much outward notice. Often abusers use subtext in conversation almost exclusively, with meanings only the child will get based on prior interaction. Children are perfectly capable of understanding encouragements given to them in subtexts, it's just that in most cases they don't understand what the subtext is in adult conversation. Abusers make their subtexts clear to their targets.

For that reason, age checking IS a good attempt to try and spare children from the effects of exposure to explicit content and emotionally abusive targeting, and you're right, every child spared is a quiet victory. The hope is that age verification (and separation from any non-verified caretaker adults) will then keep children from being awakened to curiosities they are not emotionally or developmentally ready to interact with or more importantly, defend themselves against. You can't have sympathy for this type of psychopath if you care about what the victims are going though, sometimes silently and continuously through the rest of their lives. As I volunteer, I have seen and heard much about the relationship between abuser and child.

The pedophiles either don't care or are not able to understand the gift of a normal, less-confusing and less anxiety-induced childhood where parents are parents, and banana fish stay far out at sea. If they do understand, but don't care about the impact they are having on another life, then it's truly a hate crime because they are relishing the taking of innocence and security from another being out of spite for having it once taken from them.

If the pedophile does not understand what they are doing to the child, then perhaps they aren't consciously confronting why they find excitement in children. But I would argue that doesn't change the nature of the act as an ultimately abusive one.

The only difference between a child and an adult is that the child is helpless. In the best case scenario then, pedophiles are people who do not understand why they like to attack and feel empowered by taking from someone who cannot properly defend against them. Perhaps as survivors of childhood abuse they have no point of reference for what is being taken from the children they wish to abuse. Under no uncertain terms, sexual harassment and abuse is lasting and painful.

That lack of value placed on the experience of a safe childhood for the victim on the part of the pedophile doesn't change the fact that children deserve to grow up in a safe, non-sexual environment. They have the right to be either left alone to be raised by more stable adults, or else responsibly taught what sex is in a non-sexual relationship in a boundary-established environment -- and in such a way that the child can know something of what sex is about without being drowned in the deeper aspects of adult intimacy and eroticism.

With the statistics from the early nineties as high as one in three girls before the age of seven experiencing sexual abuse, often by an adult the child is expected to trust, I don't think the SL community is being too sensationalist to point out that we don't need any more encouragement to accept or celebrate the urges of pedophiles and victims experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, or any number of other disorders requiring trained psychiatric help. The world does not need any glorification or the waste of the huge time investment to evangelize and justify this sort of behavior to others.

What we want is not happy present-day adults. What we want is happy kids who will grow up to be happy, functional future adults. We need adults that will protect each other, not perpetuate the predatory nature of abuse. There is unfortunately only so much you can do for older merchandise that already has the warranty seal removed. Going back and repeating the act in the hope of making it seem easier to accept is only avoiding the finality of the injustice that occurred. Tough luck. The enjoyment of watching it occur at the moment it is inflicted on a child is a sign of exactly the type of damaged adult we want to avoid repeating in the current generation we have a hand in raising. If anything, the smarter and more precocious the child, the more potential for great things in adulthood and the more danger they will find and explore in childhood. This is not a sign of "asking for it." It's a sign of a need for good parenting. With the online generation now grown to adulthood and proving these effects have consequences, the need is greater than ever.

I can't think of any goal or cause online or off that is more important than protecting the functional future life of a young child. Anyone who says differently should really take a moment to reflect on what rape is, and what childhood is, and how exponentially awful the two become when combined. There really is no excuse at all. Role play is not the solution. Therapy is the only possible answer.

JSM

Hello there I'm a pedophile. Just chiming in to say that I'm glad you're all distracted by these meatheads acting out their fantasies in a f*cking game, while I can go do as I please in real life. Continue to be so obsessed with this "evil crime", please, so I don't have to worry about your hateful eyes faling on me in real life.

Ciao~

BLueRibbon

"It's wrong to blame children for the choices adults make to act on pedophiliac impulses"

Most of the people who sexually abuse children are not acting on 'paedophiliic impulses.' (see http://anu.nfshost.com/?p=79 ) Paedophilia and child sexual abuse are absolutely not synonyms.

"You can dress up Joan-Binet any way you like, it's still not a consenting adult."

Agreed. Where is anyone arguing otherwise?

"Much of our popular culture has started to slide toward the argument that children are in some subconscious way purposefully acting as sexualized beings, and therefore inadvertently shoulder the responsibility of interacting on a "natural" social level of enticement towards adults."

That is a blatantly untrue statement. People have a very different opinion to that which you state. Whilst I feel that children are sexual in some ways - and have a right to be sexual with same-age partners - I do not approve of adult-child sex.... and I'm an 18 year old (so technically an adult) who is attracted to children.

"For that reason, age checking IS a good attempt to try and spare children from the effects of exposure to explicit content"

Do you feel that under-18s should never look at pornography? Most teens look at adult pornography and I very much doubt that it causes it harm, indeed nobody has ever provided any evidence of harm caused by childrens' access to explicit material.

"separation from any non-verified caretaker adults

Are you suggesting that any adults who have not been 'verified' should not be able to spend time with children? I will never engage in sexual activity with a child, despite my attraction. I would pass general verification processes because I am not a sex offender, but you would probably feel uncomfortable if a minor-attracted person were spending time with children. What do you mean when you refer to 'verification?'

"The pedophiles either don't care or are not able to understand the gift of a normal, less-confusing and less anxiety-induced childhood where parents are parents, and banana fish stay far out at sea. If they do understand, but don't care about the impact they are having on another life, then it's truly a hate crime because they are relishing the taking of innocence and security from another being out of spite for having it once taken from them."

You are using the term 'paedophilia' incorrectly. I am technically a paedophile but I don't have sex with children and I'm not a sex offender. Paedophilia refers to an attraction, not an action. I'm also unsure of why you assume that paedophiles are people who were once abused. Many sex offenders were once abused, but that is not true of people who are merely attracted to children.

Are you suggesting therapy for child abusers, or simply for people who are attracted to children but don't abuse? If you are suggesting therapy for the latter, I would like to ask you why you feel it is possible to 'cure' a sexual attraction to anyone, because nobody has ever been able to cure sexual attractions, no matter how unpopular, 'deviant', or 'ill' those attractions have been.

BLueRibbon,
ANU

dandellion kimban

Nice said. But, you are mixing the terms. Of course that child abuse is unexceptable, for whatever reason is given for it. Child abuse includes child pornography.

On the other hand, sexual age-play is role-play. It differentiates from child abuse because no participant is child.

If two adults are roleplaying, the only way to commit anything is by their words and, maybe, animations they play. Words and thoughts, except in the case of hate speech, cannot be the crime. Nor can animations, because making and playing animations involves no RL children.

Which part of what I said above you don't understand?

dandellion kimban

sorry.... the previous one was ment to be posted under anonymoose.

Nina Andrews

dandellion kimban says "Easily. Some things are happening in REAL and some in VIRTUAL. Can you differentiate real from virtual?"

The point obviously went over your head. How can Prokofy decide that virtual murder and rape will not be copied in real life, however he decides that virtual paedophilia will?

It is hypocritical. As much as it disgusts us, if you allow rape, torture and murder in the game then we should not complain about virtual paedophilia.

Prokofy Neva

>How can Prokofy decide that virtual murder and rape will not be copied in real life, however he decides that virtual paedophilia will?

Everybody is working so hard to try to distinguish virtual from real child pornography and child molestation that they forget that both involve exactly the same sinister thing: unnatural attraction to children.

There is no good reason to be sponsoring *that*. None.

I've laid out all the reasons for why I think virtual murder and rape are different than virtual child abuse.

For one, looking at child pornography -- real child pornography is a crime. Looking at pictures of real murders isn't a crime. You may not like that, but that's the norm in most societies, and while you can get philosophical about it, you can't get legal about it.

And I've laid out very good arguments for why a virtual murderer can easily keep it in a magic circle, step outside to RL, and not face the need or opportunity again because he will not have weapons, invaders, monsters, etc. Whereas a pedophile will face real children and his real desires which will not magically stay inside the magic circle.

The idea that we can't fight child pornography or child abuse inworld, online, in virtuality, because that will distract us from fighting real child abuse is illogical.

Every time a real child abuser is caught, he is caught with reams of videos and pictures. Pornography goes with the crime, more often than not. No need to facilitate it.

And there are plenty of law-enforcement and watch groups watching real child abuse, no need to create artificial shortages, throw up our hands, and say, OMG, we can't do anything about it in Second Life and we shouldn't even try.

Finally, I've demonstrated how the two are linked, and read all the links. It's pretty demonstrable. Just because there isn't a 100 percent lock-step relationship doesn't mean there is *no* relationship -- and you must work to eliminate even some small percent if that's all you believe there is.

To all the people promoting pedophilia here:

I wish you people worked as hard as you do apologizing for pedophilia as you do being creative and making art and enjoying the socializing and communing with others in an aesthetic way -- doing all those free and creative things that you claim are now in jeopardy because of a concerted effort by LL to remove the opportunity for pedophiles to abuse Second Life.

Prokofy Neva

>Could you please explain how virtual "child porn" harms children?

Read my article here?

Prokofy Neva

Nice said. But, you are mixing the terms. Of course that child abuse is unexceptable, for whatever reason is given for it. Child abuse includes child pornography.

No, I'm explaining how people are eliding the terms and blurring the definitions deliberately. Simulated child pornography is still created to satiate the desires of *real pedophiles*.

You don't leave your pedophilia at the door, come in SL, play around, and then have no consequences.

You don't come and play pedophilia in Second Life and enact scenes of raping children unless....that's what your human desires.

*Your human*. Take responsibility and don't blame the avatar, he has no will, he is you.

>On the other hand, sexual age-play is role-play. It differentiates from child abuse because no participant is child.

I realize these arguments may go over your head if you are looking for a quick fix to justify your pedophilia or another's.

It doesn't matter if there is no real child at that instant.

What "ageplay" does is create a climate of justification, just like chat groups for pedophiles to support one another, just like real child porn enables real-life contacting of children. This is all demonstrated by law-enforcers and psychiatrists, read the links I put in my article.

Creating a climate in which barriers are lowered, justifications are made, rationales are made, and the refrain is constantly "I can do what I want and whatever I feel like it" sets people up to always feel like that. The idea that it shuts off at the door of SL is silly -- of course it doesn't.

>If two adults are roleplaying, the only way to commit anything is by their words and, maybe, animations they play. Words and thoughts, except in the case of hate speech, cannot be the crime.

I realize you'd like that to be the case, but your zeal in trying to seal off the virtual from the real isn't matched by demonstrable relationships.

Normal people who aren't pedophiles who have sexual relations inside SL don't "keep it in SL". They often leave it to meet! They even marry in RL. So why are we to be led around by the nose here, believing that playactors in the pedophilia range
never act out, when we can see all the normal people do? Huh? That's just insane, it comes from the dulling of the logic that occurs by constantly being pounded on forums by pedophiles and their apologists.

Furthermore, child pornography of the simulated kind *is* the crime in some countries, as we've seen with Germany. And we can't be sure that this form of immersive, streaming 3-D pornography in the U.S. will go on being "protected speech," too.

And as I've demonstrated, the link between child pornography and assaults on children is established, so I don't see why it's such a stretch to be concerned about the link between SL and efforts to contact children. It's creepy, to be sure.

>Nor can animations, because making and playing animations involves no RL children.

>Which part of what I said above you don't understand?

I could ask you the same thing. You feel as if you have this absolutely sold, persuasive logic and reasoning, but you don't. If you claim the virtual and the real have a firewall between them, we all know that's simply untrue. They do not. They bleed over constantly; they interact; the affect one another.

Ask yourself whether you can believe it when a person says that they cyber in SL, but they never wish to take their cybering out to real life. Huh? That would be a goddamn retarded argument. Never take cybering out to real life? Happens all the time, as people wish to meet each other.

So...you say it doesn't matter if that "ageplayer" takes his ageplay out to real life only to find another ageplaying adult? But...that's not what thrills him, what he's looking for *is a child*. That's the difference!

Prokofy Neva

>Prokofy, you know I enjoy poking fun as your bombastic conspiratorial prose.

I can think of few things more bombastic, conspiratorial, and retarded, than your Safari bullshit, in fact.

dandellion kimban

Prok, all your arguments spins around couple of points:

1. There is "normal" behaviour. All that is not "normal" is deviant and will develop in criminal. Which is, thank heavens, not true. Even unnatural attraction to children is not a crime. Ask lawers. Desires, wishes and other things that happens inside the head are not the crime. You can wish to kill me, but I cannot sue you for that.

2. Pornography is conected to child abuse. Somewhat same as above. There can be some statistical evidence about that but that will stand on a court for a second. That connection says that (almost) all child abusers have collections of child porn. But that doesn't say that all who have porn are child abusers. (There is another reason why CP is illegal, not because it may be the sign of future abuse, but because if children are used to make porn the one who posses images is colaborating in crime of making it.)

3. People who do cybersex will meet in RL and marry. I am touched by the romantic view of SL, but that simply is not true. A few people who met on internet did meet in real and even married. I personally know two pairs. But.... A lot of ppl who do cybersex do it as one night stands, as experiments, as a quick date. Take a look at all sex clubs all over the SL where it takes less then couple of minutes to get involved with somebody. Do you really think that all of those people have a lightest idea of meeting IRL? No, of course not. For most of the population, cybersex is just a fun without any commitment and/or expectations. And that goes especialy for experimental things. There is a huge amount of people who uses anonymity of internet to try something that they will never do IRL. How many residents are transgendered in SL? Do you really believe that all of them are RL transgendered, transsexual or homosexual? No, they are not. Just a tiny fraction is, but very tiny fraction.

4. People who play shooting games will shoot IRL but they don't have opportunities. Which amandment of U.S. constitution grants every citizen the right to have weapons?

No I don't believe that there is firewall between real life and the virtual one. At least not the one that completely closes all the ports. But, for the mayority of us, when things goes through it, from RL to SL and back, they change. They gets the shape that is ok in the given environment. Living in the SL is a form of art. And our desires are being manifested in that medium. Nothing bad about that.

If one's instincts goes towards some form let them manifest in SL better than in RL. Or in any other artistic medium. Just as you said: "I wish you people worked as hard as you do apologizing for pedophilia as you do being creative and making art and enjoying the socializing and communing with others in an aesthetic way". That leads us to the idea of psycho-drama. For most of us, usualy considered as healthy and reasonable, it is a safe thing to do. The minority whick is problematic is not to be encouraged in such an activity by themselves but rather with professional help. But, before you object that, it is not a good idea to cut all the people from playing with certain ideas just because there is some percent of people who can react in a bad way. (In that case, penicilin would be illegal.) That way you will not solve the problem of deviant minority but propably recruit new deviants from those which could deal with themselves with harmless experiment. Instead of that, they are left to seek other means, hopefully not in RL.

BLueRibbon

Prokofy Neva,

You claim that a link between child pornography and child abuse is established. I assume this is based on the reports claiming that 'x% of people who possess child pornography also abuse children.'

Those numbers are worthless as they fail to take into account the obvious fact that people who view child pornography *and* molest children are more likely to be noticed by LE than those who view child pornography but don't abuse children.

In other words, there will be a lot of people who view child pornography but don't abuse children (since one is illegal, the other is illegal *and* harmful) who are not noticed by LE and therefore do not become part of the statistics; if those people are taken into account, the number of CP viewers who also molest children will be significantly lower.

Those figures actually describe the number of child molesters who also possess CP, which does not suggest that CP causes people to molest children, any more than it suggests that molesting children causes people to possess CP.

I've already made it clear that I don't agree with adults having sex with children, but I'm also happy to state that the only reason I don't look at CP is because CP is illegal. It's good that I have strong self-control of my sexual urges, because non-abusive outlets for paedophiles are forever being criminalised.

I'm sure there are many people who engage in paedophilic age-play in SL, who have no intention of acting out in real life. This is, quite simply, because they are intelligent enough to be aware that while they are not abusing a child or violating the law in SL, they sure would be if they had sex with a child IRL. You may have sex with someone based purely on your fantasies in SL, but you don't have to consider the fact that you would be harming someone by doing so, nor do you have to consider legal consequences. For paedophiles, life isn't just about basic urges, it's about social, moral and legal issues which heterosexuals do not have to consider.

----

"both involve exactly the same sinister thing: unnatural attraction to children."

That is absolutely irrelevant. Surely the only relevant issue is protecting children, not protecting adults' feelings of what is 'natural?'

If you created the world you desired, you would have paedophiles isolated from everyone like them, with absolutely no emotional or legitimate sexual outlet, treated like monsters, unable to differentiate between virtual reality and reality. Would that help children, or just make you feel better?

I very much doubt that your goal is to protect children from abuse; if that is indeed your goal, you need to start thinking about what constitues abuse, rather than what offends your morals.

BLueRibbon,
ANU

dandellion kimban

(mental note: gotta meet blueribbon inworld)


The more this thing about age-play goes on (not only here), the more I feel that the point is not to protect children, not even to forbid people to play their fantasies in virtual environment but to help "moral ppl" not to face what is in their heads. C'mon, from the comments all over the blogosphere one can see that there is a group of ppl so clean and straight that snowflake is like dirty bitsh from hell compared to them.

Baba

Bonus points for making a reference to Copybot in an article on pedophiles. Prokofy, I applaud you.

Prokofy Neva

I'm glad the pedophiles of Second Life are here to call themselves *pedophiles* and not sugar-coat what they are with this euphemism called "ageplay" which sounds like "adults merely experimenting with other adults" when what it really means is "adults who are attracted to children".

I'm not required on my land -- nor is Linden Lab required in their world -- to extend absolute and extreme protections of the First Amendment. That's the *other* piece of the First Amendment and other protections that people forget -- freedom of assembly means you get to chose what set of community standards you wish to enforce. The Lindens -- and most of us -- believe that this concept of ageplay is "broadly offensive". They've fudged on whether they find it offensive when "out of sight and out of mind" but other owners of sims have said they draw the line -- no sexual ageplay, period.

Therefore to have lengthy arguments about whether or not the First Amendment can extend to virtualized 3-d pornography or not is a bit of abstraction. I don't think the courts, the media, and the experts have had a chance to study and think about it, and I personally don't want SL or RL determined by small coteries of cadres by their own lights.

>You claim that a link between child pornography and child abuse is established.

It's not "my claim," but one that the media citing law-enforcement and experts, readily report. It's not the exoticism you try to make it out as. For all the cynical snorting that pedophiles make about "no connection" you have to wonder why each time a pedophile is caught, it's with loads of porn.

>I assume this is based on the reports claiming that 'x% of people who possess child pornography also abuse children.'

They do, that's established. But it's not only that: read the links. Making justification for child abuse in chat rooms, on the Internet -- and they would add if they knew about Second Life -- in simulated gameplay -- sets a norm and slides the bar downward. It creates an enabling environment.

Practically speaking, for a landlord like me, it creates a constant strain of having to interfere, intrude, and adjudicate MORE. If I have 10 ageplayers in 10 apartments, I have to go examine each one. I have to look at each one's wall art, profiles, and maybe even zoom in on them and see if any of them have chat indicating they are real children. Who could possibly justify or have the time for that? So that is why you have to say: given this legal vulnerability, given the inadmissibility of this crime, I will remove the climate for it and not allow it, period. If somebody else wants to play Ageplayers' Commission, they can play, if the Lindens will tolerate it. I won't be doing that.

>In other words, there will be a lot of people who view child pornography but don't abuse children (since one is illegal, the other is illegal *and* harmful) who are not noticed by LE and therefore do not become part of the statistics; if those people are taken into account, the number of CP viewers who also molest children will be significantly lower.

So? One percent is too many. Lower statistical returns don't rescue the awful intellectual proposition here -- that just because 'not everybody' or 'not many' connect between child porn and simulation and actual child molestation doesn't mean it's sustainable as a proposition. It isn't. It's still wrong.

It would be like saying, "Only 30 percent of the people who go over the speed limit of 65 die in car crashes, so therefore, we don't really need the speed limit, because 70 percent of the people don't die." Nobody would accept that sort of monkey math and self-serving reasoning of a pedophile when it comes to car crashes; they'd say, my God, let's get it down further -- 30 percent you say? Why 5 percent is too many, and if we can show that raising or eliminating it makes that number shoot up, by all means, keep the speed limit, or even lower it, we might shave it down to 25 percent.

There is nothing wrong with limits and laws. They are good things. Laws against molesting children are good things; limits to protect children are good things. Prosecution of people with these attractions who act on them is a good thing; it discourages them. That bears repeating, as we listen to the barrage of concerns from selfish adults here.

>Those figures actually describe the number of child molesters who also possess CP, which does not suggest that CP causes people to molest children, any more than it suggests that molesting children causes people to possess CP.

Gosh, calling the police "LE" and calling *child pornography" "CP" must really dumb it down and render it meaningless in your little pedophiles' chat groups, eh? That's pretty retarded. It's like saying "all these people who died going over 65 didn't really die because they were speeding, so we don't need a speed limit".

People use pornography when they can't get the real thing, or when they can, but it's not fully as satisfying as the perfection of pornography. They move from pornography to the real thing when they get the chance.

People with normal sexual appetites that do not involve children move from pornography when they can, and there's no reason to expect that pedophiles, who are already concealing something and justifying their criminal inclinations, are going to restrain themselves more than anyone else. Indeed, they are constantly setting the stage for justifying what they do, constantly barraging everyone with argumentation of why they are right. They are inherent propagandists, constantly trying to erode people's sense of wrong. We have no reason to trust them whatsoever.

>I've already made it clear that I don't agree with adults having sex with children, but I'm also happy to state that the only reason I don't look at CP is because CP is illegal. It's good that I have strong self-control of my sexual urges, because non-abusive outlets for paedophiles are forever being criminalised.

I don't buy the hydraulic belief system that says human beings have sets of desires that require regular draining out like overflowing ponds, or that we are *required* to provide them with outlets and drains. There's no science that says one must drain the pond or suffer consequences.

Human beings can control themselves -- or not. It is up to their free will and upbringing. Civilization is made up of people controlling their animal inclinations.

We have no studies to demonstrate that creating these purported "non-abusive outlets for pedophiles" are somehow legitimate. None. And when the stories crop up in law-enforcement, or in SL as we've seen, the connection between RL child pornography and "ageplay" in SL was said to be established. Was it indeed? This is the allegation. We're bound to see more of this rather than less.

The concept that there are absolutely no children in Second Life not being victimized by ageplayers is another canard. We have two things in Second Life. We have children who are not on the teen grid. They escape detection. They are indeed on the adult grid. Every knows this. Everyone has encountered them and some of us have tried abuse reporting them sometimes in vain. The other thing we have is ageplayers. The thought that these two populations -- both without sufficient oversight -- aren't coming together in Second Life is naive and wilfully blind to the extreme.

>I'm sure there are many people who engage in paedophilic age-play in SL, who have no intention of acting out in real life. This is, quite simply, because they are intelligent enough to be aware that while they are not abusing a child or violating the law in SL, they sure would be if they had sex with a child IRL.

I have no reason to believe that pedophiles are "intelligent" enough whatsoever, given their propensity for loud, obnoxious, aggressive, propagandizing of their awful cause. There are many reasons to believe they may have profound psychological disturbances. There is every reason to believe that they will lie, manipulate, and distract in their argumentation as we can see them doing now all over the forums. They are heavily motivated to distract, minimize, and deceive about this shameful practice. I don't get why I'm supposed to trust a pedophile; a pedophile thinks it's ok to have sex with children, but the only thing stopping them is the fear of criminal prosecution. THAT is something trustworthy?!

>You may have sex with someone based purely on your fantasies in SL, but you don't have to consider the fact that you would be harming someone by doing so, nor do you have to consider legal consequences. For paedophiles, life isn't just about basic urges, it's about social, moral and legal issues which heterosexuals do not have to consider.

I don't believe in pedophiles' rights. I don't believe in the right to crime. I don't think that I need to form a support group for pedophiles in SL. I think that pedophilia is rightfully criminalized in real life, and should remain so.
Simulating it erodes the barriers created in society for penalizing it morally and legally; I see no reason to remove their barriers.

>both involve exactly the same sinister thing: unnatural attraction to children."
>That is absolutely irrelevant. Surely the only relevant issue is protecting children, not protecting adults' feelings of what is 'natural?'

Um, nice try with that old propagandists' trick, trying to trip up someone on their values. But...the whole reason adults have concepts like "natural" and "natural" is because....they wish to protect children. Adults don't develop moral systems merely to parade around and feel themselves right and judge others to have power over them; while some may do that, such phenomenon need not discredit moral systems in general. Moral systems criminalizing pedophilia exist for a reason: to protect children. And to erode that by trying to claim immorality in the presence of those affirming the value of morality, trying to "shame" them and turn the tables on *them* to make *them* for feeling guilty of they are "self-righteous" is merely a manipulative trick -- moral systems are moral, and should be upheld.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to encourage the erosion of the barriers against pedophilia in real life, which exist in morality and the law, by constant breaking down of the barrier in virtual life. I do believe the virtual and real are very much connected.

Nobody keeps their sexual relationships and even just very intense personal or business relationships within SL only. It is a very emotional medium. People become terribly traumatized and worked up. It's not at all uncommon for people to travel to foreign countries to meet some love they have found in SL, only to be disappointed, or conversely, to live happily ever after.

It's not at all far-fetched to imagine that the pedophiles who found a happy hunting ground in Myspace.com will find an even more lucrative grazing area in SL, where they can disguise themselves more easily, where their victims can also be disguised, and where they can make an immersive and emotional appeal far more compelling than on a flat text space like myspace.com

It only takes one tragedy to discredit the world.

>If you created the world you desired, you would have paedophiles isolated from everyone like them, with absolutely no emotional or legitimate sexual outlet, treated like monsters, unable to differentiate between virtual reality and reality.

Yes, that's what I would do. I'd have to do that, given that pedophilia is indefensible -- intellectually, morally, spiritually, legally.

>Would that help children, or just make you feel better?

It would help children -- and again, nice try in using THAT particular discredited propaganda trick *again*. This isn't a conversation that takes place because I need to feel better. I don't objectively need to argue against pedophiles. I chose to argue against them on this issue in SL because I think it's wrong for them to be there, and the Lindens are right to discourage them.

I don't see how anyone could object that punishing, isolating, ostracizing, discouraging, and fighting the sinister justification of pedophilia is the right thing to do to protect children. I haven't heard of a better idea.

I don't see how the concept of justifying pedophilia *helps* children either. There isn't a single argumentation coming from these wolves in sheep's clothing here who are pedophiles that their argumentation "to help children" is anything anyone should trust.

I don't imagine any association of psychiatrists, board of health, children's foundation, or any other serious entity is going to be studying Second Life, and pronouncing it a wholesome and safe place for pedophiles to go where they will be completely happy and be 100 percent sure to never molest a child again. Not going to happen.

>I very much doubt that your goal is to protect children from abuse; if that is indeed your goal, you need to start thinking about what constitues abuse, rather than what offends your morals.

I realize that it's the hallmark of trained propagandists to try to turn someone willing to take a stand against their odious cause against their *own* argumentation and their own cause of defending liberal values, by trying to appeal to their sense of altruism, to their sense of wishing to resist "hyprokisy" -- and to try to trip them up on liberalism to insert illiberalism. However, I'm schooled in resisting that and I can see that train coming down the tracks from miles away.

I'm confident that a policy of zero tolerance for public advocacy, promotion, advertising, display, etc. of "ageplay" in Second Life is absolutely the right thing to do. I'm absolutely confident that if all landowners and rentals agents and club owners who now must check off adult on their land if adult activity takes place there indicates that they have 0 tolerance for child pornography and "ageplay" that creates a conducive environment for what is illegal -- that's a good thing. I think it will avert a tragedy in Second Life, hopefully.

I'm confident that if people morally reject "ageplay" and don't fall for the blandishments of its arguments, they can create a safer place for children and teens.

I don't see why rejecting ageplay *doesn't* create a safeer place for kids and teens. That's the part no pedophile can ever get anyone to agree with -- except by this silly concept that if we don't let them cavort in Second Life, they will go out and attack more children in real life. And...what was your excuse before there *was* a Second Life?!

People are so busy trying to save the First Amendment that they forget that even while doing that, and having some abstraction about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, you can also morally condemn what you know to be wrong.

I personally think it's a good thing to keep pedophilia out of Second Life, just as it is discouraged from the Internet. I don't see why any of us are charged to help protect and promote it.

The question then becomes: how much should everthing be monitored to prevent it? How much should people be checked in their own homes? I'd have to think and study about this quite a bit more before I could contemplate it, but in Second Life, it's a voluntary matter. I personally can discourage and ban "ageplay" from my properties, and not contribute to the possible violation of the law, and not create a climate of impunity and justification. That's important.

>The more this thing about age-play goes on (not only here), the more I feel that the point is not to protect children, not even to forbid people to play their fantasies in virtual environment but to help "moral ppl" not to face what is in their heads.

This is another common propaganda technique commonly used in totalitarian movements all over the world, by people with sinister intent trying to break down the judgement of others -- and again, I see through it. It's a forced contradiction of the interlocutor's ideals, trying to invert his values.

It tries to take people's natural desire to do what's right and moral, and the acceptable moral code that 10 minutes ago above, this poster himself was claiming to also abide by (!), and suddenly turn it on its ear.

So...10 minutes ago this pedophile was claiming that he had strong control of his urges and never looked at porn because it was illegal. And he would certainly never do anything to harm a child. Because that was wrong.

Now...10 minutes later, he's trying to break that priority and that valuation down in a very sinister argumentation method. Now he's saying, oh, I don't think you really care about harming children, about the law, or about what's wrong, you care only about your own moral rectitude.
So...the entire campaign against pedophilia now isn't about the law and the morality we *thought* we agreed on, it's only about banging on smug SUV drivers from the Moral Majority. Riiiight!


So...Um, noooooo I care about harm to children and the law. Remember? That thing you claimed YOU were for up above when you were trying to let us know what a great law-abiding citizien you were?

And now, this self-professed pedophile, is going to play another trick out of the propagandists' book, honed in chat groups and support networks, which works like this: "You think I'm a beast? Well, you're just like me. You are running from the same urges".

Except...we aren't. We're not the pedophiles. You are. So let's not mix it up here, please. We don't want to have sex with children. You do. Keep a focus here.

>'mon, from the comments all over the blogosphere one can see that there is a group of ppl so clean and straight that snowflake is like dirty bitsh from hell compared to them.

A person like me or anyone criticizing pedophilia need not be perfect. They need not be snowflakes. They need not be free of sin. They need merely to affirm that pedophilia is morally and legally wrong. Which is what this poster claimed to affirm up top, 10 minutes ago, remember?

BLueRibbon

"(mental note: gotta meet blueribbon inworld)"

LOL, I actually don't play Second Life, but I often get involved in debates related to paedophilia.

Prokofy Neva

If you do not have a Second Life name and do not supply a RL name than you cannot post on this blog, those are the rules here, BlueRibbon.

dandellion kimban

About that poster that changes every two minutes: those are two of them! Read carefully.
Second, I'd like to ask you for a favour: can you allow blockquote tag. This is becoming a bit hard to read.

Ok, now back to the children.

>So? One percent is too many. Lower statistical returns don't rescue the intellectual proposition here -- that just because 'not everybody' or 'not many' connect between child porn and simulation and actual child molestation doesn't mean it's sustainable as a proposition. It isn't. It's still wrong.

Sure, one case of child abuse is too many. But that does not make a right to do counter-abuse. Seems like you have been reading propaganda handbooks too.

>The question then becomes: how much should everthing be monitored to prevent it? How much should people be checked in their own homes? I'd have to think and study about this quite a bit more before I could contemplate it, but in Second Life, it's a voluntary matter. I personally can discourage and ban "ageplay" from my properties, and not contribute to the possible violation of the law, and not create a climate of impunity and justification.

I am very interested in how you or anybody else is going to find out what are two people are playing. You will hack into their IM's? You will listen and watch what is going on their land. Don't forget that private land is private. I hope I don't need to remind you that you were the one to assert so when shepherd was introduced. Using potential crime to spy on residents/citizens is forbidden in U.S. , Europe and in all other democratic countries. Once again, that is one of the basics of democratic law systems. Private property is sacred and no one is guilty until proved otherwise. Legalisation of spying just because there is statistical possibility of crime is what totalitarsm is.

And once again, just for you, I am not doing sexual age-play propaganda. I just stand on the side of freedom of thoughts.

Lem Skall

Prok, you are crossing the line between judging people for what they do and judging them for what they think. You are doing that based on the assumption that if they think it, then they will do it. Others have already commented on that and I totally agree with them that it is unacceptable to discriminate against people based on what they think.

Maybe a point that you are rightly making (weakly though) is made against promoting these thoughts or promoting pedohilia. I can see a point in that by using of a parallel with promotion of hatred. In other words, although "thinking" racist thoughts is not illegal, promoting racism is illegal even if no minorities are immediately and directly hurt.

But are the practice and promotion of age-playing a promotion of pedophilia? I can understand a gut reaction saying that they are, but we need more evidence towards that before discriminating against anyone in SL. And it is indeed discrimination if age-players are not allowed to organize themselves in SL.

As for what is natural or unnatural attraction, there is very little in human sexuality that really qualifies as "natural". Otherwise, we should ban all fetishes and sex should consist only in males having 15-second copulations with every female that is ovulating. So let's not use the "unnatural attraction" argument in deciding what is right or what is wrong.

A message to age-players though: it might help if you would condemn sex between adults and children in RL, besides just pointing out that age-playing is not that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Advertisements

  • Advertisement

Advertisements

  • Advertisement
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs