I am also very attracted to playboy models and once had the pleasure of meeting one in real life. Although I was attracted to her I did not rape her. I simply admired her beauty. Why didn’t I rape her? Because I am not a rapist and I don’t believe in harming women for my own pleasure. I will never have sex with a playboy model or a victoria secret model and I am ok with that. I can live without fulfilling that fantasy.
I pass women on the street every day who I am sexually attracted to but I have never groped one, never thrown one to the ground and raped her, I don’t even leer or stare. The same thing goes for young girls I see every day. I admire their beauty, I do not leer or stare, I do not grope and I do not rape. Consentual sex is not possible with children and I am not a rapist, so I will never fulfill that fantasy in real life and I am ok with that. I can live without fulfilling that fantasy as well. (Maybe for a pedophile who is only attracted to children and not adults it would be more difficult since they have no other real life release. I don’t know, only speculating here.)

I have had consentual sex with women. In my single years I tended to go for 18 to 19 year old petite girls, and that was great. I married a petite woman. I have children and I would kill anyone that laid a finger on them. I am not attracted to my own children anymore than someone who is attracted to women their own age is attracted to their own sister. I am a respected, upstanding member of my community and am considered by most who know me to be an extremely moral person.

I have been participating in ageplay in SL with other consenting adults for approximately 2 years and I feel no more desire to harm a real life child then I ever did. I am thankful for the sexual releif it gives me but can understand why it disgusts others. There are many practices on SL that I find revolting (dolcette, beastiality, rapeplay). I understand and appreciate peoples strong natural desire to protect children and share that desire. But consentual roleplay between adults does not harm children anymore than fantasy dolcette causes the death of real women, or fantasy rapeplay causes a real woman to be raped.

‘To Catch A Predator’, while being true and about true cases, is intentionally used as a propaganda tool to make the instance of such crimes seem far more frequent than they actually are.

Many, MANY studies show that unlike the ‘To Catch A Predator’ Show, most offenses occur in the home with family members being the culprit.

I would also like to duly note that, as I cited previously, less than 120 years ago (And throughout practically all of history) it was common and normal to marry at 10. It was extremely common for young girls of age 12 to marry men of age 30. The reason for this is that historically (In practically every era, INCLUDING the modern era) older men were more financially secure and more capable of providing for a wife and children, young women just into menses were considered to best for such men because they could lavish their security upon the children they had.

There is also the instinctual alpha-male sort of reaction to take into account.

Less than fifty years ago, it was very common in some states for women to still get married at 13 or 14. I know, I have family members who did. And they married men usually 4 to 6 years their senior.

Everything I study and read on the subject indicates to me that however much society hates pedophilia, there appears to be a social predisposition for it that is more common than people would like to acknowledge.

So, while none of the issues that this stuff was normal and accepted not very long ago are ever actually addressed, those responding also appear to like ignoring that if it happens between two consenting adults, it is none of your business or the law’s business.

Your hatred for child rapists aside, this isn’t child rape. The desire to equate child porn as something that affects people entirely DIFFERENT than regular porn is also aside the point. I have seen no studies or evidence that there is a difference. Least of all from an impartial group that isn’t willing to let their bias speak for them.

Two adults, playing kids having sex in a video game? It’s nobodies business. Next people will be demanding that age-players be considered pedophiles and locked up because they like to wear diapers and pretend to be babies and get turned on by it. Frankly, I find them odd and more than a little bit disturbing to talk to… but I don’t find them criminal or offensive.

It will be eye-opening.

I have had folks bring out the 1971 study numerous times to attempt to prove that the availability of pornography not only does not increase sex crimes, but reduces them.

The study DID NOT include child pornography. Apples to oranges. Nor are many of it’s citers taking current technology into effect. When they did the study, what did they have? Magazines, books, and 8mm?

We should not be attempting to legitimize pedophelia in any way. It is NOT comparable to homosexuality. Two consenting homosexuals is NOT the same thing as having sex with a child.

I think that the internet in general has brought about a legitimization of pedophilia or other such quirk as normal to your average Joe going online. In the past, maybe he could hook up with 1 or 2 fellow pedophiles in his local area, so he could feel normal. Now, it can be millions potentially.

It is still deviant. We even have this guy in California who has been posting links and pictures of children and locations where a pedophile can go in real life to view or do otherwise.

The damage done to children who are forced to participate in child pornography or sexually assaulted by someone who thinks it is okay are far too high for me to accept. And much more than I am willing to give someone for their so-called civil liberties.

The old adage applies, “Your freedom ends at my nose, or my kid’s nose.”

What we really need is a much newer study untainted by presumptions. I believe there was one done recently on folks in jail for child pornography charges. That only included those who had it on their computers. After studying these folks, they discovered, that they didn’t just enjoy it merely in cyberspace, but acted on it in real life, as they attested to themselves.

I am sorry, but if you are going to claim there is an increase in sexual related crimes, as well as pedophilia, you had better back that claim up with some studies.

There are certainly a lot of horrible stories in the news in recent times of terrible things being done to toddlers and infants. That doesn’t mean the instance of such crimes are increasing, as much as reporting on those crimes are increasing.

Also, Legis, on the face of your claim that “Everyone knows what is helpful and what is not…” et al, I have my doubts you’ve ever taken any serious anthropological studies classes, researched non-western culture, OR taken a course concerning Ethics (Which doesn’t TEACH you ethics as much teaches you what ETHICS is.)

Ultimately, your response is the same as others. You are equating fantasy with reality. You are claiming there is a connection. You are held to the same standard as anybody else. When I was asked to supply evidence of my stance, I did so. I’d be more than willing to supply more. Where is yours?

Aside from people who already have deep seated problems with separating fantasy from reality, Average people with decently adjusted psyche’s don’t go about raping and molesting because they look at porn. It just doesn’t happen. If it DID Happen, there would be numbers to indicate that Pornography incites desires and induces higher than normal sex crimes.

I am a father of a 3 year old boy. I care about him, and never want to see him hurt. Even so, I am not going to let my fears of demons and evils destroy my rational credibility. Studies show that the people most likely to molest or rape children are family members, or people very well known to the victims. Strangers on the internet is a modern day boogyman, and in my entire time on the internet, I haven’t met such people that would stalk a person across state lines.

Not that they don’t exist, but I think they are far fewer and further apart than the media would try to indicate.

I will state again, Two adults playing fantasy with each other. Mind your own business, they’re not hurting anyone. It doesn’t matter if you’re afraid they will, if they aren’t doing anything to hurt anyone you don’t pre-judge them guilty for what they might do.

Any one of us might go out on a murder spree. Just because we might doesn’t mean you should be tried for “IF”.

In the end, much of this is moot. 2nd life will implement what they need to in order to appease the people who find this abhorrent.

Yes, I am heartfelt. If my own blood were enough to stop it from happening; to help people even the offenders - to understand that their life and others lives are worth more than that, better than that. If one life were enough to stop the violence and pain, I would give mine without hesitation.

When a person confronts instances like: sexual molestation not just of children, but even INFANTS 3 weeks old; how it came about, family histories, the psychology and actions leading to the event, and the aftermath; these things inform as to the true scope of just how far it goes and how connected it all is. It is no longer about any petty personal pleasure. All beliefs of freedom as a stand-alone concept dissolve in the face of humanity; “this is what we have chosen as best for one another?” There is no way anyone can avoid the question if they have genuinely, personally reckoned with these things; there is no way to hide, forget you heard it or saw it; it becomes indelibly inscribed. It is beyond any border or belief or barrier. It just breaks your mind, and opens your heart.

Flinkster (@60),
excellent post - great summary of the real harm caused. Thanks for posting.

Angela,
right on. Well said.

I think it’s safe to say that most reading these posts are flabbergasted that some have actually chosen to defend the pedophiles in this - I seriously would have never guessed it.

QUOTE: “…If it is merely adults acting out age-play fantasies, I view it as entirely different. If there is harm being done, I am firmly against that. If there is no harm, then there is no harm. Prosecute the wrong doers, not the ones that MAY do harm.”

The line of thought does not follow logic in this statement. In the first place SL is an open, unrestricted interface. This is well known even by its own advocates and anonymity is considered one of its most redeeming features. So how does anyone know they are in fact engaging in these fantasies with other ADULTS? The truth is: they don’t know that, they ASSUME IT. In the second place and more importantly with regards to the sexual exploitation of children, here’s a newsflash about pedophiles. Before a pedophile becomes “a pedophile” and takes action on their desires, the act is first projected AS A REALITY in the context of their own mind. It is rationalized as “just a harmless fantasy” that eventually leads to translation in physical experience; because it DOES exist for them as a real need and therefore must be expressed. Virtual reality, as an easily accessible form of expression, becomes the next step for role-playing. Finally, a physical connection is made whereby a real child becomes harmed. The very “thought of the act” truly IS from whence harm commences and the driving force behind the actual event. In fact, there is no act taken by anyone whether it is sordid or mundane that does NOT REQUIRE mechanical coordination of: psychological thought / consciousness impetus before physiological exertion (physical action).

Therefore, to suggest “no harm is done” by pretending to be a child in a 3D world having sex with another pretend child in a 3D world… is absurd. It is an argument founded upon the gross denial of the very RIGHT TO FREEDOM it advocates because it EXEMPTS the proto-type of its “fantasy creations” (i.e.: real children) the freedom to NOT be victimized by it in turn. Because you really don’t know how the other participants in your fantasy game will act out their repressed desires when “fantasy” no longer is enough to satisfy them. You cannot guarantee this safety for our children can you? How convenient it is to claim your OWN freedom under the opacity of the internet.

So you want to justify the “right to fantasize” now under the auspice of “free speech, freedom from censorship”. OK agreed; everyone is free to fantasize, engage, and participate in whatever they choose. Unfortunately, the freedom of committing an act in whatever form, simply DOES NOT PROVE the statement: no harm is done thereby. Please enlighten us pseudo-libertarian on YOUR OWN RESEARCH founded upon your work with children victimized by sexual abuse that documents for the world there is NO HARM DONE to our children by sexual fantasies; please confirm for us all “ipso facto” that the use of virtual realms and online mediums do not contribute in any way to the very real, terrorist and physical experiences sexually abused children have endured. Perhaps take a moment to undertake the task of the true Libertarian instead of pretending to be one, and hold some genuine regard for the right to “freedom FROM HARM” by investing your personal arrogance into something worthwhile such as: the subject of sexual exploitation and how to prevent it.

What exactly is being defended here by justifying activities (in an environment readily available and accessible by everyone including children) that advance the VISUAL IMAGERY OF A CHILD engaging in sexual acts, and to further assert them as a necessary pre-requisite of your freedom? It appears that your freedom imposes on the freedom of ALL children by portraying their collective image and likeness without their permission in a manner that is irrefutably damaging. No different than using the likeness of an African American in a racial way “to defend the freedom to be a racist”. PLEASE. So why not just be honest and engage in sexual play AS THE CONSENTING adult one claims to be? Does hiding aberrant sexual activity behind the image of a vulnerable child really support a legitimate cause? No, for some reason, it doesn’t seem to enamor those that recognize the lack of merit of anyone parodying themselves AS A CHILD (defenseless in real world terms), when the real truth is they are in fact an ADULT THAT SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Curiously, this is precisely the tactic and logic of THE PEDOPHILE (parody, pretend, portray). So let’s just call exploitation for what it is shall we, instead of trying to sell it under the auspice of the First Amendment.

If people think there is no harm done by using caricatures of children for sexual expression, then they are misinformed about the psychologies of pedophiles, child molesters, and sexual offenders and, the sequences of events that lead to the exploitation of children (and other age-groups likewise). The very negative impact of sexual exploitation in practice begins with the “mental masturbations of innocent fantasy”; it has very measurable long term and detrimental effects on the whole of society everywhere in our world; a well documented subject that cannot be argued by denial or shallow intellectualization. Truly, HIDING BEHIND A CARTOON CHARACTER or otherwise does not negate the repercussions that remain. As a member of the human race I sincerely believe we as a species are capable of better.

Instead of producing any actual research, his detractors have insulted him or quoted “authorities” who have an obvious agenda. I could ask finkster, for example, if he thought that he was more qualified to judge religion than the catholic pope or the dali lama, and in each case, suggest that he should therefore adopt catholic or buddhist assertions, proved or unproved. Citation to authority is interesting, but not persuasive. So, the answer, particularly regarding the Home Secretary, is yes! I suspect that Marcus, who seems to be skeptical and rational, is more qualified than the Home Secretary, and, as he seems to have no agenda, is more qualified than NSPCC or COEN.

The issue seems to me to be open for doubt. I looked for such evidence myself, online, and, like Marcus, came up only with research that made me doubt my previous position more and more. The proposition seems to be obvious, and yet, like many other sorts of emotionally charged beliefs, seems not to be supported by any psychological or sociological research that would pass even a mild peer review process.

Interesting… it reminds me somewhat of the witchcraft assertions of the 18th century, that midwives were likely to be witches and that herbal healers almost certainly were (only prayer would cure illness, you see). Everyone knew that it was true, even though nobody could demonstrate it.

In such situations, how does a libertarian assert that the behaviors, which appear only to be fantasy exercises, must be punished?

You attack me for my views only because I defend what you feel is evil; people who have impulses or sexual attractions that are poorly understood or outright hated.

Nowhere in this conversation have I condoned the abuse of a child, either physically or mentally. The reason that the studies were cited which demonstrate the difference in age of Consent is largely because for the greater majority of human existence, the age of consent has been younger than the arbitrary age-limit imposed by western society.

To this day, there are still many cultures that rely upon pedarasty style relationships as a coming of age, and it is abnormal for them NOT to participate.

The Greeks and Romans were one of the height’s of civilization in history, yet both cultures had a very well known view of Adult men having sexual relationships with young boys and men. In fact, in the Greek Culture there was the idea that a Man could not have real love with a woman, as only another male could understand the mans heart.

Just because our society enforces the belief that certain things are naturally evil does not make it so, history flies in the face of such commandments. I certainly wouldn’t advocate trying to do such things in our own culture, as the expectations and roles which children take part in are very different from historic roles.

Do no harm, as it were.

You can deride and moan about how much you think I’m a disgusting human being for having such views in the defense of the indefensable in your eyes, but it still boils down to if it is two adults playing with eachother, it is nobody’s business no matter what they’re pretending to do.

Learn why there is a difference between Fantasy and Reality.

I realize there are such things as imbalanced people, in fact I have to occassionally deal with such folks. Your argument can be used for violence in cinema and movies, too… that being exposed to violent imagery acts as a disinhibitor.

Does that mean we should ban the playing of violent video games? Censor the content of violent movies? There certainly are some who feel that this is an entirely appropriate action to take, if only to prevent those imbalanced people from becoming disinhibited and acting out their fantasies on unsuspecting innocents.

Now certainly, if there is more to the story and if there is a ring of people who are preying on children, they should be brought to justice. I wholeheartedly agree. However, I am of the mind that we should not pre-emptively judge people just because their behavior is aberrant and an affront to commonly held values.

Judge not on what a person might do, but instead on what they DO. It is all well and good to make the argument against me that, “You are saying you don’t believe in preventative tactics?”

To which I would certainly respond, yes, I do agree with some preventative tactics. But none that would deprive anyone of their rights, even the suspected criminal.

If they’ve done something wrong and it is found out, then they must suffer the consequences of their actions. If it is merely adults acting out age-play fantasies, I view it as entirely different. If there is harm being done, I am firmly against that. If there is no harm, then there is no harm.

Prosecute the wrong doers, not the ones that MAY do harm.

The extreme overreaction some people have to any portrayal of a child sexually is actually a sign that they are repressed pedophiles. Normal, sane people see it and are simply uninterested. Repressed kiddy-rapists like Duncan or Gene see that, and get sick, because that’s what they want, and they hate themselves for it.

It’s the same symptom that Republicans have about homosexuality; all Republicans are repressed homosexuals, which is why they hate it so much. Real heterosexuals just don’t care, because it’s uninteresting to them.

http://listlva.lib.va.us/cgi-b.....mp;P=47352

As before, this more directly deals with the changes in consent law in the latter parts of the 19th century.

It is due to note that prior to those changes, Delaware’s age of consent was the age of SEVEN. Even after the other states raised their age of consent, Delaware’s remained at SEVEN for some time.

It is also just as likely that the accepted and expected response is to state it is repulsive out of fear of social reprisal.

Thaumata posted the wikipedia article detailing Pedophilia and it’s related paraphilia’s, and many of the studies are cited in the foot notes. Having read the rather obvious propaganda you cited as an article (noted as such due to it’s word usage and tenuous balance between being anti-homosexual towards being homophobic in content), I am not inclined to state that something I find repulsive, and the majority of those discussing finds repulsive is necessarily evil.

I do not find thoughts, of anything, to be evil. It is to act on thoughts which harm others which is evil.

You may define the very THOUGHT as being evil. I do not. Thoughts and ideas cannot harm, only through action is harm brought.

As noted in the Wikipedia article, prior to the end of the 19th century, the age of Consent in London and AMERICA was 8-12.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexol.....ilia.htm#1

And here is something that more directly relates to the changes in consent laws here in the United States in the latter part of the 19th Century.

I suggest you read both, as well as many of the citations in the Wikipedia article as it more ably demonstrates the position.

As it stands, a set of adults VIRTUALLY emulating kids and having sex is NOTHING like molesting a child.

And you need to understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Further realize that if everyone can agree that the very thought of pedophilia is repulsive - that’s a clear indicator that it is simply wrong. There’s no room for relativism here - it’s plainly wrong.

In my opinion, your fear and emotions about endless rights are clouding your ability to identify something so obviously wrong as wrong.

At this point, I bow out. If I cannot reason logically with someone, and have that person see that they are being ruled by their fears and emotions concerning something that isn’t harming anyone or anything except their own sense of values and morality, then there really is no point trying to make the point.

I half expected such a case when I started into the conversation, I am just disappointed to be proved right. Again.

Believe someone or something is evil. Whether it is or isn’t doesn’t give you, nor anyone, the right to deny normal rights to those people. By making a special case to treat some people that everyone can agree are repulsive with special denial of rights, you open the door for others who feel the same way about you to do the same.

That’s a road I’d rather never walk on, for anyone or anything.

It’s interesting to note that a lot of people don’t really realize that there is a difference between being a pedophile in a medical sense and being a child sex offender (who usually also happen to be pedophiles.)

More interesting is to note the studies on the extent of occurrence. Some studies show that up to a quarter of adult men are attracted in some way to children… However, I really don’t believe that up to a quarter of adult men would harm a child, or even indulge this attraction at all.

I don’t think anyone on this thread wants to see a child be injured. I do think it’s fair to question who and what, exactly, we’re afraid of and why. I highly doubt that society will ever (nor should) have any kind of tolerance for sex offenders, but do we have tolerance for what goes on in someone’s head, if they never harm another soul as long as they live?

Think of it like this: If I think twenty times a day about punching my boss in the face, and maybe even go so far as to hang his photo on a dartboard in my office, should I be thrown in jail for assault? How is that different?

I’m not going to comment on the age-play stuff as SL and other games like it isn’t my scene - but I will say that I get emense entertainment from beating up prostitutes in GTA and going on random killing rampages. I’m also a pacafist IRL. Go figure.