Child porn & underage sex witch hunt analyzed


A great article about pedophilia witch hunt: http://open.salon.com/blog/patrick_j_kelly/2010/02/19/the_pedophile_witch

I recommend you read the original article, as it is full of very valid and strong arguments, including such points as:

  1. how can many people be criminally convicted for owning or watching multiple copies of one single 50 year old picture?
  2. how can 12 year old children be legally tried as adults, if they committed a crime, but they can only consent to sex when they are 18?
  3. how can 16 year olds be victims, if they enjoyed the act, if they actively sought it, repeated it?
  4. how can 16 year olds marry, have children, but legally not be able to consent to sex?
  5. how can a large part of the population be declared criminal, just for thought crimes like enjoying pictues of 17 year olds?
  6. why would people go to jail if there is no victim, if their crime (looking at a copy of a picture) did not harm anyone?
  7. how can people go to jail for something that 20 years ago was not even a crime?
  8. why is depiction, possession or looking at underage photos a crime, while depiction and consumption of murder photos is not a crime?
  9. how come that legal concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”, “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”, “penalty should be proportional to the crime”, “laws should not be arbitrary, discriminatory” are totally trampled and violated?

The challenge of legally punishing people for engaging in sex with minors has long been filled with problems. Alleged victims have always been reluctant to testify against someone who more often than not turned out to be a parent or close family member. Some were also reluctant to accept the premise they were victims at all in sexual encounters they not only enjoyed but frequently played some role in instigating. Laws defining 18 as the age at which one is mature enough to decide who they want to have sex with evokes cynicism from sexually active teens and preteens who view such restrictions as outmoded and totally out of touch with the reality they know. It is not that uncommon for many of these so-called children to be married with their own children at 16 which also draws into question the viability of the government’s one size fits all attitude towards sex. And when government prosecutors fight to have 12 year olds stand trial as adults doesn’t this call into question the rationality behind laws that say when it comes to sex you must be 18 before you are old enough to decide?

The author clarifies that of course violent sex with a child is a horrific crime. But the emphasis is on violent, non-consensual, not on sexuality or thoughts.

Needless to say, anyone in their right mind would find the idea of an adult sexually attacking a child as being one of the most horrid acts humans are capable of.
Source: http://open.salon.com/blog/patrick_j_kelly/2010/02/19/the_pedophile_witch

It seems that religious zealots manipulated law makers into wrong perceptions of underage sexuality so they passed absurd laws based on these wrong perceptions. Human-Stupidity.com would also add that certain  “feminists” also participated in this (see this post in the  AntiFeminist blog).

“Traditional” right-wing religious women are EXACTLY the same as the left-wing feminists are. They just use different mumbo-jumbo to achieve the same ends. For example, both ‘radical’ & ‘traditional’ women oppose any kind of sexual competition e.g. prostitution, pornography, etc. Feminists blabber about ‘patriarchy, equality…’ while right wing fems quote bible verses. Same b.s. different packaging.

And this, in essence, is the difference between somebody like Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton. [...]

Feminism has always been about playing catch-up in the quest to stop new technology from widening the free sexual market and putting the sexual interests of unattractive women at risk.  As progress speeds up, one must hope that this will become increasingly impossible.  To take one example.  Anyone with eyes and ears will have noticed a marked ‘return to puritanism’ over the last year alone with regard to the media witchunts of ‘cheating’ husbands such as Tiger Woods.
Source:  AntiFeminist blog

Back to the salon article:

There were two basic misunderstandings behind attempts to keep children from behaving sexually. The first was ‘out of sight out of mind’ which falsely assumed if children were not exposed to sex they would never be moved to think about it. [...]

The second misunderstanding behind attempts to keep children from behaving sexually nestled tightly within ideas of protecting children from sexual assault was that the experience of any sex at an early age was a traumatic event leaving lifelong scars upon developing young minds. This view was not endorsed by the scientific community at the time and is not endorsed by it today.[...]

Strangely, depiction of murder and mayhem is perfectly legal, while depiction of nude teenagers, or sexual activity of under 18 year olds is a heinous crime.

And even though, unlike debated issues of psychological harm from sex, there is absolutely no doubt that murder is harmful to both society and the victims of murder, no one has ever suggested we should make the possession of pictures depicting murder illegal in spite of good evidence showing exposure to pictorial depictions of violence leads some to commit violent acts including murder. It seems we have accepted a double standard in social values that seek to protect children from sex on one hand whether they need it or not, while at the same time overlooking the negative effects graphic depictions of violence have on those same children who are exposed to it on a daily basis. [...]

However, in law it is accepted to expect and demand that the laws we enact can withstand such tests of comparative fairness. In other words if you are going to put people in prison for possessing child pornography you should also be putting people in prison for possessing, transmitting or recording pictures depicting graphic violence or murder.

Interestingly, child porn laws can be damaging towards the “victims”, children and adolescents. Not just due to arrests for sexting, consensual sex between minors, but ….

There are many valid reasons why it was a mistake to make the possession of child pornography illegal. Not only because laws were enacted to facilitate an immoral and unjust witch-hunt against so-called pedophiles or anyone suspected of harboring sexual interests in children, but even more importantly because these laws effectively criminalize childhood sexuality not only in the minds of children but everyone else as well. Seeing an integral part of your own personality as immoral, abnormal or unacceptable to the society one lives in does serious psychological damage to impressionable young minds too immature to question the irrationality of misguided government legislation. The statistical increase in suicides among younger and younger aged children should be setting off alarm bells in the minds of anyone claiming a sincere interest in the wellbeing of children.

Again, I warmly recommend you read the entire article http://open.salon.com/blog/patrick_j_kelly/2010/02/19/the_pedophile_witch

  • Share/Bookmark

  1. No comments yet.
(will not be published)

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats

Switch to our mobile site