Extreme porn, laws & stuff

[smnb]

To continue off-topic from other thread...

As you can see i am questioning my own set of believes. Yeah maybe i feel we as a society have become very blase about violence, sex etc... and justify it by saying it's just a video game or movie, tv series. Everything can be explained away.

...

I ask you this, people who are caught for having **********, who does not or have not every abused a child in any form just watch videos and pictures, how do you feel about those people? Surely to them it's just fiction...

We're definitely pushing some boundaries further, mostly thanks to internet, which gave everyone access to anything they've ever wanted to see and much more. It's true, at least for some people, that it drives them to look for more and more extreme stuff. That's not reversible. As the great philosopher Randy Marsh once put it: "Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other's mouth, you can't exactly go back to Playboy."

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

But more seriously, I don't think that this search for extreme porn holy grail is likely to include ********** (real, young looking children), because that's simply not appealing for regular person. That's good news, IMO.

One trouble with ********** is that the usual definition is extremely broad, even if you keep only real stuff. Talk to people about ********** and they will probably imagine raped toddlers or something. Weakhearted ones will faint right away, technical types will struggle imagining how could it even work, and they will all agree that it's just the worst thing. But that's not only this, ********** by popular definition is also nude pictures of 17yo. So if a girl sends her boyfriend some nudes of herself, she's technically producing **********. Or maybe she (or he, lets not discriminate) has great fun showing off in front of webcam. No one gets hurt, everyone is happy. I'm not saying it should be ok (there's good argument for "they're too young to know what they're doing"), but it's vastly different from general perception of ********** as this horrible thing with abused innocent children.

But lets make it "easy" and take only the undoubtedly bad stuff, real abuse. My general belief is that as long as something doesn't affect other people, any person can do whatever they want, I think it's the basic idea of freedom. If I would possess **********, would it affect anyone? Not really, it would be just some files sitting on my harddrive. But it's not so simple. If I made it, it's bad, because it means I abused someone. If I bought it, it's also bad, because it's encouraging production. So far it's clear. But if I would just download it from somewhere for free, then it's becoming less clear. It could be e.g. from some sharing forum. If I'd just download it, without even giving "like" to post, I'd not be giving anyone any validation of what they're doing or incentive to produce more. So on one hand it's ok, but on the other one it isn't, because after all, we're talking about bad stuff where someone got actually hurt.

The question is, what's the best solution. As far as I know, opinions differ even among experts (it's also hard to know who's really an expert, too many people claim to be experts on any subject), so I won't pretend that I know any ultimate solution. But one thing is clear. If someone is genuine pedophile attracted to kids, it won't just go away (some say that enough praying to Jesus helps, but ... erm ... lets not go there). And just because they are attracted to kids, doesn't mean they can't be otherwise good people. They themselves must know best that they are completely fucked, their prospect is holding back for whole life and never having their fantasies fulfilled. It must really suck. Personally, I'm not convinced (to put it mildly) that locking these people in prison for just downloading some images or videos from internet helps anyone.

The worst part is that the problem could be largely avoided. The real stuff will be always problematic, so I can see why someone wants it banned. But we now have all this wonderfull computer technology, which can be used to create any kind of material to please anyone, while not hurting (or better, in any way affecting) any victim. So great, problem solved, someone can just create Kid Fucking Simulator 3D, all responsible pedophiles will jerk to that and everyone will be happy. But no, instead we make laws that do not distinguish between real people and made up stuff. If I was a pedophile and knew that I could be locked up all the same, no matter if I download real stuff or just some cute drawings from Japan, what reason would I have to not say "fuck it" and care about which one is better or worse? None.

The whole thing got completely out of hand. I only recently came over this "adventure of unlucky Swedish guy" (

You must be registered to see the links

) and I don't say that often (I grew to be a cynic who doesn't take anything seriously), but that's fucking scary. Basically any fan of some unique parts of Japanese culture should shit their pants reading this, even if they like it only for the art itself.

 

[renice]

Holy shit, a sensible and well reasoned post.

I once heard something tangentially similar, but to be fair I dont know if it is/was true. I heard that the penalties (perhaps in some states) for rape, was the same as the penalties for murder. Meaning, basically, that anyone commiting rape, was basically encouraged by law to kill their victim. It would increase their chances of getting away with it, and would make no difference if they were caught.

Law is tricky, and that example is just another of where laws are passed trying to do the best job possible, but ignoring the obvious inevitable results. Clearly, synthetic porn of any kind should not be illegal; there are already laws covering real things. Arguments such as gateway-drug path are moot, if synthetic porn leads to ownership of illegal porn, so what, there's laws in place for that; the gateway is irrelevant.

Remember when it used to be illegal to be homosexual? Still is in some places. Humans are weird.

 

[Oiz]

I do agree that you shouldn't go to jail for looking at drawn CP. Rather those people should be forced to regularly see a psychologist/therapist or whatever, since they're mentally sick. (Talking about people who're really into it and search specifically for that on a regular basis, not someone who just got curious once, of course)

However people that download/watch real CP should be imho (or at least into a closed psychiatric ward... Yeah, better this than jail probably). Since that alone already supports the production and distribution of said real CP. With supporting those, you basically already supported the sexual abuse of children, whether you did it knowingly or not doesn't matter.

No matter the case those people need to be kept an eye on, because they pose a risk to children. The risk with people watching real CP is higher imho and the easiest way to keep an eye on them is if they aren't free to move wherever and do whatever they want.

On another note: People who actually rape children should have their dick cut off. okerFace:

 

[anne O'nymous]

I will answer only on this point, because, mostly, I agree with the rest. Not that I disagree with this point, it's the opposite, but I wanted to share my own experience :

But more seriously, I don't think that this search for extreme porn holy grail is likely to include ********** (real, young looking children), because that's simply not appealing for regular person. That's good news, IMO.

I'm a forty something guy who's on the net since almost 20 years now. This to say that I have, voluntarily or not, seen a lot of extreme porn in my life ; some that I wish I can unseen. Among all this, I sometime found ********** (I mean real life one)... And there's one thing that's clear in my mind, it's revolting.
I don't talk about the act itself, but about my reaction, the thing I felt deep in my guts when finding this kind of pictures. I disliked "two girls one cup" and don't looked it 'till the end, same for some kind of really extreme porn, but never felt this except when finding real **********.
I can play shota or loli games without problems, even 3D ones, because they are games, it's a fantasy that a lot of people share while still knowing that it's just a fantasy and will never become a reality. And that where the border stand, fantasy versus reality. I can pass hours faping on loli, but in the same time I'm a the limit to puke if I look at a softcore real porn child picture. I wasn't father when I saw the first one, it wasn't even on internet... Today I still can't forget it, neither what I felt looking at it...

So yes, like you said, once it stand outside of the fantasy part, it's simply not appealing for a regular person, even a real pervy one.

 

[smnb]

I do agree that you shouldn't go to jail for looking at drawn CP. Rather those people should be forced to regularly see a psychologist/therapist or whatever, since they're mentally sick. (Talking about people who're really into it and search specifically for that on a regular basis, not someone who just got curious once, of course)

I think the important part is motivation (for the lack of better word). If you browse some site with downloadable manga, you'd find out (or you already know) that a large part of it could be seen as ********** by laws in many countries. But it's comics, it contains stories. It's like books. Well, the story depth is usually lacking compared to books, but it's the same in principle. You can plausibly just enjoy the story for the story itself and not primarily for the sexual stuff (although in many cases it would not be easy to explains it like this and make it sound believable ). If someone jerks to it for images (or just directly searched for single images with no story attached), it's also possible. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything, such person might never think about touching real child, because it's something very different from those drawings. Take other groups, e.g. furries, they enjoy these strange creatures, half animal, half man, but it doesn't mean they would want to fuck them in real life (and not just because they don't exist).

However people that download/watch real CP should be imho (or at least into a closed psychiatric ward... Yeah, better this than jail probably). Since that alone already supports the production and distribution of said real CP. With supporting those, you basically already supported the sexual abuse of children, whether you did it knowingly or not doesn't matter.

I'm missing the right kind of support here. If you take out the money or any kind of appreciation (that's support, right), there is nothing left. Those who create the stuff do it mainly because they like it and will do it anyway, with support or without.

No matter the case those people need to be kept an eye on, because they pose a risk to children.

Pedophiles have different preferences, and since it's children, it may sound risky. But it doesn't mean they also automatically lose self-control. Do regular people usually rape someone just because they don't have any willing sexual partner at the moment? They don't. Of course, they do have more options, that's true. Pedophile can't find a (child) hooker for example. But there are many "normal" people who do have the option in theory, but not in practice (all kinds of socially awkward) and they still don't go raping anyone.

 

[smnb]

@anne O'nymous:
Me too, on internet for 20+ years, been everywhere, seen everything (or maybe not, who knows), ********** included. Even enjoyed some of it (stop, wait, nobody go calling police yet, please!). It was at the beginning, at school, me and other guys around 18-19, we were searching for porn (any porn, we were young and internet was new) and found some "nudist" videos, girls dancing around the fire and stuff. Kind of nice as I remember it, but most found it boring. The girls could be roughly our age, and if they were local, we could had any kind of dirty fun with them in real life and no one would raise an eyebrow. Only several years later I found out that the videos were from some Ukrainian pedo gang and girls were in 15-17 range. Still no problem in real life, but if I'd have saved those videos and someone found them now, by law I'd be a "dirty pedo" too. A little worrying. But ok, it's real people, better safe then sorry, I guess, etc., it may be right if it's not publicly available.

But it's even more worrying since real life laws ventured into fantasy land (that's a relatively new development). I also enjoy some drawings, but in many cases it's not even for the sexual part, it's more because they are cute, funny, nicely drawn (seriously, many of them are true art), stuff like that. So it really amazes me that one day someone might come, claim that it's child pornography (the law already exists), I'm dirty pedo, and lock me up. That's fucking ridiculous and it should have been stopped before it ever happened.

As for the real non-softcore stuff, I came across some too over the years, of course. P2P sharing used to by "good" for that, you start downloading an action movie and end up with **********. I didn't like it either.

 

[215303j]

It was at the beginning, at school, me and other guys around 18-19, we were searching for porn (any porn, we were young and internet was new) and found some "nudist" videos, girls dancing around the fire and stuff. Kind of nice as I remember it, but most found it boring. The girls could be roughly our age, and if they were local, we could had any kind of dirty fun with them in real life and no one would raise an eyebrow. Only several years later I found out that the videos were from some Ukrainian pedo gang and girls were in 15-17 range. Still no problem in real life, but if I'd have saved those videos and someone found them now, by law I'd be a "dirty pedo" too. A little worrying. But ok, it's real people, better safe then sorry, I guess, etc., it may be right if it's not publicly available.

19 year old guy + 15 year old girl = statutory rape in some countries...

Actually I see the logic in that too. Even though a 15 y.o. may *think* she can make good decisions, she actually can't (that seems to be scientifically proven) and should be protected by the law. That's not to say that a 18 y.o. always makes good decisions, but they are legally adults, so there's not so much that you can do.

 

[anne O'nymous]

and found some "nudist" videos, girls dancing around the fire and stuff.[...]

Er... wasn't what I had in mind when I said "softcore real porn child". Firstly because of the age ; you said around 15-17, which mean that they were legal in half of the world. Secondly because of the situation. What you saw was more "candid" than "pedo".
No, what I talk about is picture which don't leave a single doubt in your mind. I said that I'll never forgot the first one, well it was this :

Spoiler: sometime words are enough to disgust you...

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Technically speaking, it was softcore, but it's not the feeling you get when seeing it... No, really not the feeling you get...
There's no way that it was some kind of (mind fucked) family picture. Sometime you're not sure. By example, the parent's can be comfortable with nudity and appear naked with their (also naked) child. It's just a candid family picture of people who don't understand that it can also be seen in a depraved way. But not this one. Everything, from the pose of each person on it, to what was in their eyes, claimed that there was something really wrong here.

I also enjoy some drawings, but in many cases it's not even for the sexual part, it's more because they are cute, funny, nicely drawn (seriously, many of them are true art), stuff like that.

And the innocence. While I can enjoy shota/loli, I don't really enjoy the one implying corruption ; perhaps because I'm a father. But when the story play with this innocence... I don't know, perhaps some kind of return back in time, when life was easier, with this time the addition of the pleasure of sex. After all, is there something nearest to paradise than the pleasure of sex mixed to the innocence of the youth (I mean your own youth) ?

So it really amazes me that one day someone might come, claim that it's child pornography (the law already exists), I'm dirty pedo, and lock me up. That's fucking ridiculous and it should have been stopped before it ever happened.

Once again perhaps it's the father who talk here, but I'm not really sure that it should have been stopped. After, it all depend of the way laws works in your country.
In mine, France, it's illegal to depict real persons (both girls and boys) who look like underage (less than 15 years), whatever it's in a sexual way or just an erotic one. And I agree with it, you shouldn't sexualize child outside of pure fantasy. Perhaps in art, I don't have a strong opinion on this particular topic. This said, the notion of pedophilia in itself isn't present in the law. So I can, perhaps (honestly I don't know), go to jail if I own shota/loli games/hentai, but it wouldn't be for pedophilia nor something like it. You need to sexually abuse (in a loose way of the word "abuse", so it can be simple touching on the wrong places) of a minor to be sentenced as what is meant as pedophilia.
And like I said, I agree with this situation. In one hand it protect children, and in the other it don't over do it against citizens ; you can be a perv, as long as it's just in your mind.

As for the real non-softcore stuff, I came across some too over the years, of course. P2P sharing used to by "good" for that, you start downloading an action movie and end up with **********. I didn't like it either.

Yeah, it's disturbing. I've seen porn with barely legal (for my country, so totally illegal in the US) girls, with their boyfriend if they were really this age, or in pure porn movies when they were just "looking like". And I never felt the same thing than I felt when looking at real **********.
It look so wrong in so many level that you can't stay impassible while looking at it. honestly I don't understand how cops can stay sane in their mind while working on a anti-pedophilia unit.

 

[smnb]

19 year old guy + 15 year old girl = statutory rape in some countries...

Actually I see the logic in that too. Even though a 15 y.o. may *think* she can make good decisions, she actually can't (that seems to be scientifically proven) and should be protected by the law.

The interesting thing about this is that according to laws, young people in some countries mature significantly faster than in others. The age of consent is 15 here with no additional limits, so in theory 15 + 80 is perfectly fine. Feels strange to me, but law doesn't mind. Some neighboring EU countries have even less. And yet in some other parts of the world, people are supposedly not capable to do such decision until they're 18. That's a huge difference.

-

Then a little clarification, "pedo" was a simplification/shortcut and I don't mean the number of letters. Pedophilia itself is just a condition, orientation or something like that (sorry, non-native speaker here and I'm no Shakespeare; that's also my official excuse for other possible misunderstandings), sexual attraction to kids who do not show the signs of developement into adults. Once they start to grow sexual body parts, it's nothing for pedophile any more. As far as I know, no "civilized" country (another shortcut) has anything against pedophilia as such, only when the people act on it. But in popular culture and among regular people, "pedophile" became universal term for anyone associated with child abuse, **********, and since the definition of child was extended into fiction, also for many innocent people who wouldn't be sexually interested in real child even if someone forced them with a gun to their head. In reality, according to some stats I've seen, real pedophiles are involved only in minority of child abuse cases. It's mostly "normal" people who do it.

Firstly because of the age ; you said around 15-17, which mean that they were legal in half of the world.

That's the "funny" thing. We have 15, so being physically involved is fine. But for porn, child is anyone under 18 (bare minimum for whole EU should be real people plus "realistic depictions" or something like that, with individual states being able to go even further into drawings and such). So have physical fun as much as you want and it's ok, but take a picture and bam, **********. Kind of strange at first, but ok, it makes some sense for real people.

But when the story play with this innocence... I don't know, perhaps some kind of return back in time, when life was easier, with this time the addition of the pleasure of sex. After all, is there something nearest to paradise than the pleasure of sex mixed to the innocence of the youth (I mean your own youth) ?

Makes sense to me. I was young schoolboy once and I really liked when girls started to suddenly become more interesting. Only I was too stupid back then to do much about it. Oh those wasted oportunities! I would totally play a game where I'd have a chance, as young MC, to do things right (in some sense). Except such game would be highly illegal here and some other parts of the world, because depiction of minors, and it's game over. But if you moved the characters into college to make it "safe", it would just not work anymore. This is what I think is complete nonsense. It's one thing to enjoy the story through MC's eyes and something completely different to expect that I myself, few decades older guy, would go and molest schoolgirls, or even just have an actual sexual interest in them, that's just bullshit.

Once again perhaps it's the father who talk here, but I'm not really sure that it should have been stopped.

It might be also a little misunderstanding, I was refering only to fictional stuff here. If it's real people, it's good to try to limit such stuff, i.e. actually protect living breathing children, it's a good thing. No existing child = no one to protect. But some laws try anyway.

 

[anne O'nymous]

That's the "funny" thing. We have 15, so being physically involved is fine. But for porn, child is anyone under 18 (bare minimum for whole EU should be real people plus "realistic depictions" or something like that, with individual states being able to go even further into drawings and such). So have physical fun as much as you want and it's ok, but take a picture and bam, **********. Kind of strange at first, but ok, it makes some sense for real people.

Yeah, forgot to specify it. 15-17 years old is legal for (consensual obviously) sex, but not for sexual depiction. It's probably related to the notions of both consent, privacy and intimacy. Generally when you're 15-18 years old you don't go full slut mode. There's exception of course, but you tend to keep sex as an intimate act between two persons. And even in slut mode, you still chose who have sex with you and who see you naked.
In the opposite, sexual depiction, whatever it's photography or a movie, lack the notion of privacy and intimacy. When you consent to pose for an erotic or porn photography session, you consent to have your body, the more intimate parts of it included, seen by perfect strangers. It's another level of consent, one that isn't necessarily fully understood by too young people. Unlike sex it's not a thing that happen then is forgotten ; once you've done it, it will stay forever... And when you're 15-17, "forever" is a strange notion and don't seem to be this long. You probably tend to think something like, "well, I'll show my cunt and some people will fap looking at it, it's not this bad", when you should think, "I'll show my cunt, and in forty years, there will still have people faping at it, thinking how roughly they would bang it. And if one cross my path and recognize me, he will tell me, with a lot of details, how hard he cum while looking at my pictures".
Just look at the number of girls posting soft nude pictures of them on tumblr, by example, and it's clear that a lot of them don't fully understand what it imply. Hey, there's even 20-25 girls who regret the pictures they took one/two years ago, so if they're younger...

It might be also a little misunderstanding, I was refering only to fictional stuff here. If it's real people, it's good to try to limit such stuff, i.e. actually protect living breathing children, it's a good thing. No existing child = no one to protect. But some laws try anyway.

So I agree. For me, purely fictional stuff are on another level.
Obviously there will be some people who'll start by this and end with real pedo, but I'm pretty sure that they will have done it any way. The thing we all agree here is that you aren't appealed to real pedo unless you are already a pedophile. It isn't something which grow up in your mind, like can be BDSM by example. You don't wake up one day and say, "well, today I'll fuck an underage girl, because I'm curious to know how it feel and if I'll really like it", which you can do out of curiosity for fetishes/practices you haven't tried before.
So, for me playing pedo games harm no one. It can even help if you fight a small pedo feeling in you ; you're attracted by real young girls/boys, but clearly know that it's simply wrong. Instead of letting this feeling being repressed in you, and facing the possibility that one day it will just become out of control and led you to rape the first young girl you'll meet, you satisfy this feeling in a fantasy world, playing fantasy shota/loli games. Of course, it can backfire, one day you can feel that fantasy isn't enough, but like your urge can be kind of kept under control with the help of games, you'll end being just a pedo-tourist... Not that it's better, but at least it's less worse. I mean, while the literal definition of pedophilia is, more or less, "having consensual sex with young partners", nowadays the definition tend to be, "none-consensual abusive sex with young partners". So, being a pedo-tourist is less worse than kidnapping young girls and turning them into your daily plaything.

This said, I understand that some people, as well as the authorities, don't see things like me. Because nowadays pedophilia isn't anymore consensual sex and became rape and sexual abuse of the more defenseless, it's obviously a really sensible subject and it need strong legal actions. There's no place to consensual pedophilia anymore since it would create a grey zone. By example a young girl abused by her teacher can think that it's how things goes when your teacher really love you and that it happen in every school with every teachers. And so she'll state that she gave her consent, when in fact she was abused.

Interestingly, in France the government is thinking about this subject (or already passed the law, can't remember right now), adding to the notion of, "age of consent", a notion of, "age where consent isn't possible". It's interesting, because the notion of "age of consent" doesn't mean that you can't have consensual sex before it, just that after it you can only sue the oldest partner in case of rape. Which mean that you can legally have sex with a 14 years old girl (or boy) as long as she's able to convince the justice that she was really fully consenting to it, done it on her own and not because of some kind of influence, and understood since the start what "having sex" mean.
Then appeared a case where the girl said she was consenting, claimed and yell it, but clearly seemed to not understood what she did and what she was consenting to. That's why this notion of "age where consent isn't possible" appeared, because there's really an age under which you don't understand what "having sex" mean and that it's not, by example, some kind of game that people play.
But well, I digress so I'll stop here.

 

[DarthSeduction]

Rather those people should be forced to regularly see a psychologist/therapist or whatever, since they're mentally sick. (Talking about people who're really into it and search specifically for that on a regular basis, not someone who just got curious once, of course)

I'll respond to this, because quite frankly, its a pretty biased and somewhat ignorant statement. Generally that's how it is when people look at an issue in black and white though, so I get it. However, I was 12 years old when I first discovered hentai. By the time the term Rule34 had been invented I had been looking at pronographic images of the girls from my favorite cartoons and anime for about 3 years. That meant characters like Sakura, from Cardcaptor Sakura, who was in elementary school, more popularly, misty, the first companion of ash, assumed to be around his age of 10, american cartoon characters like the cast of All Grown up, the rugrats spinoff that put them in middle school. As I grew up, so did my taste in women, and later men, and later still nonbinary norms. However, at no point did those pubescant characters stop having some allure.

This isn't something I've ever wanted to explore in reality however. For me, consent comes before all else, and I do believe that, especially in our very sexually repressed culture, you aren't really capable of consent before 16. Some countries do have lower ages of consent, but the laws are pretty clear that a 14 year old can't fuck a 20 year old.

On top of, in porn, being a lolicon, I'm also a huge siscon, specifically little sisters but that's not necessary. If I was a danger, then I probably would have acted. Because my own little sister is 10 years my junior. That would mean, that if my taste in fictional pornography translated to a physical need to act in reality, I had the perfect victim for my personal kinks. My own little sister who adores and looks up to me, how easy it would have been to corrupt her. Yet the thought never really entered my head. I'm not saying I didn't entertain it, I'm saying I never really thought, "Damn, my little sister is so hot, I should totally tap that." And that's not because she isn't hot, she definitely is. I just have more self control than that.

So no, people who look at and get off to fictional underage content aren't really pedophiles, we don't actually need psychological help just because we look at a fictional depiction of underage characters. I'm not saying that there aren't actual pedophiles in the bunch, but rounding up everyone who enjoys a loli once in a while and forcing them into therapy isn't going to do anything but alienate good rational people.

On a side note, when it comes to real young girls I think the laws are broken in some ways, but appropriate in others. I agree with everyone who's said that downloading actual CP, especially "hard candy" content, is an offender who has supported the creation of such content. That said, I don't think that a teenager within the range of the age of consent should be considered on the same level. This is where I have a huge problem with our sexually repressive culture. You see, a teen who decides to post photos or video of themselves knows what they're doing. The problem is they don't expect the reactions of the people around them. Too often young girls, or boys for that matter, are psychologically abused after the fact, to the point where they come to regret their decision, not because they didn't want to share their body like that, but because the people in their real lives made that life a living hell for it. They couldn't go on being a normal person, because their parents condemned them, their friends shunned them, and their new acquaintances only speak of them as that one guy/girl who did the porn thing once.

If our culture wasn't so repressive then that wouldn't be the case. Sure, she'd be getting more sexual attention, but she wouldn't be getting shunned and persecuted. And its this shunning and persecution that leads to the regret, not the act itself. We as a society need to stop forcing our beliefs on other people, we need to let them live their lives as they see fit. Because when that girl or boy kills themselves its not going to be because they posted something pornographic, its going to be because other people forced them into a corner and destroyed their self worth.

 

[smnb]

Hey, there's even 20-25 girls who regret the pictures they took one/two years ago, so if they're younger...

Lets hope that in order to protect these people, they won't raise the minimum porn performer age to 30. Nothing against 30 year olds, it's still great age, but it would limit the variety severely. And not that it would really help, these days everyone has equipment to post naked pictures of themselves. Even kids do it.

Which is another problem. Ideally, kids wouldn't send naked pictures of themselves to anyone or anywhere. But they have the means to do it, they were almost born with mobile phone attached to their hand, so it will be happening. It may look to them as fun thing to do, if they do it on some publicly accessible service, they'll surely get some "fans", who will praise them, encourage them, ... And I believe that the kids could actually enjoy it at that moment, with no trauma or anything (based on my past experience of being curious young boy, even though I've never done anything like this). There's natural curiosity about sexual things at some age, and while real life contact with adult person would most likely scare me, phone/computer screen can easily shield off the image of some pervert(s), and instead show only nice, supportive and understanding adult friends. Of course, any possible fun quickly ends when some asshole takes the pictures/videos and starts blackmailing the kid.

Now about the legality of this, it's obviously all wrong. Blackmailing asshole deserves the worst. The "nice friends" also deserve some kind of punishment, because even if they didn't hurt the kid, their involvement was still wrong. The question is, what about the next person, who wasn't involved at all, just found the leaked images on internet and intends to keep them, because it's enough for them to help with the urges. Even some sexuologists say that it can work (not necessarily for everyone). Obviously, when they really keep the images for themselves, no one will ever know. But many things can happen, bring a computer for repair, technician finds the stuff, etc. When law criminalizes posession, then everything is clear, guilty, good bye. But it doesn't seem exactly fair, when the only victim can be slightly shocked repair technician, because actions of said person couldn't have any effect on anyone else.

 

[spambot]

So no, people who look at and get off to fictional underage content aren't really pedophiles, we don't actually need psychological help just because we look at a fictional depiction of underage characters. I'm not saying that there aren't actual pedophiles in the bunch, but rounding up everyone who enjoys a loli once in a while and forcing them into therapy isn't going to do anything but alienate good rational people.

Laws aim to both punish and, more importantly, prevent unwanted behaviors, in a practical, enforceable manner. Insofar as no one can read minds or see the future, preventing crimes require using (most likely imperfectly) correlated behaviors as predictors. Are there people who possess real or fictional child pornography without the intent or ability to ever have sex with a child? Of course. But a pedophile is far more likely to possess these materials than a random person drawn from the general population; therefore, it can serve as a predictor for potential pedophiles.

What about the innocent exceptions?

Just as cop wouldn't wait for someone who pulls out a gun at a traffic stop to actually fire, or the FBI wouldn't wait for someone amassing bomb-making materials and terrorist propaganda to actually carry out an attack, the cost of some crimes being actually carried out are simply deemed too great--indeed, pedophilia is generally considered one of the most heinous crimes. Yes, this entails a great deal of subjective values and the "lines that shall not be crossed" are drawn according to the opinions of those with legal authority. But unless anyone can produce data showing the correlation between possessing these materials and pedophilia to be negligible or at least fairly minor--an impossible task due to data limitations--how else could it be?

On a side note, when it comes to real young girls I think the laws are broken in some ways, but appropriate in others. I agree with everyone who's said that downloading actual CP, especially "hard candy" content, is an offender who has supported the creation of such content. That said, I don't think that a teenager within the range of the age of consent should be considered on the same level. This is where I have a huge problem with our sexually repressive culture. You see, a teen who decides to post photos or video of themselves knows what they're doing. The problem is they don't expect the reactions of the people around them. Too often young girls, or boys for that matter, are psychologically abused after the fact, to the point where they come to regret their decision, not because they didn't want to share their body like that, but because the people in their real lives made that life a living hell for it. They couldn't go on being a normal person, because their parents condemned them, their friends shunned them, and their new acquaintances only speak of them as that one guy/girl who did the porn thing once.

If our culture wasn't so repressive then that wouldn't be the case. Sure, she'd be getting more sexual attention, but she wouldn't be getting shunned and persecuted. And its this shunning and persecution that leads to the regret, not the act itself. We as a society need to stop forcing our beliefs on other people, we need to let them live their lives as they see fit. Because when that girl or boy kills themselves its not going to be because they posted something pornographic, its going to be because other people forced them into a corner and destroyed their self worth.

Now about the legality of this, it's obviously all wrong. Blackmailing asshole deserves the worst. The "nice friends" also deserve some kind of punishment, because even if they didn't hurt the kid, their involvement was still wrong. The question is, what about the next person, who wasn't involved at all, just found the leaked images on internet and intends to keep them, because it's enough for them to help with the urges. Even some sexuologists say that it can work (not necessarily for everyone). Obviously, when they really keep the images for themselves, no one will ever know. But many things can happen, bring a computer for repair, technician finds the stuff, etc. When law criminalizes posession, then everything is clear, guilty, good bye. But it doesn't seem exactly fair, when the only victim can be slightly shocked repair technician, because actions of said person couldn't have any effect on anyone else.

Age of consent laws and child pornography laws do not apply to minors. It's perfectly fine for those under the age of consent to sext or have sex with each other. It only becomes a crime for adults who come to possess these materials. While I agree "slut-shaming" is a cancerous relic of our misogynist past that is harmful for both adults and minors alike, it is in no way related to or abetted by laws meant to protect minors.

The "blackmailing assholes" and the "nice friends" are about as different as a kidnappers who abuct using force and those who lure children away with candy. The age of consent is predicated on the idea that the gross power imbalance between an adult and a minor constitute exploitation and violation; how "nicely" one goes about this is irrelevant and hypocritical. As for people who come upon these materials "second hand", they're as guilty as people who keep goods they recognize as being stolen.

 

[DarthSeduction]

Laws aim to both punish and, more importantly, prevent unwanted behaviors, in a practical, enforceable manner. Insofar as no one can read minds or see the future, preventing crimes require using (most likely imperfectly) correlated behaviors as predictors. Are there people who possess real or fictional child pornography without the intent or ability to ever have sex with a child? Of course. But a pedophile is far more likely to possess these materials than a random person drawn from the general population; therefore, it can serve as a predictor for potential pedophiles.

What about the innocent exceptions?

Just as cop wouldn't wait for someone who pulls out a gun at a traffic stop to actually fire, or the FBI wouldn't wait for someone amassing bomb-making materials and terrorist propaganda to actually carry out an attack, the cost of some crimes being actually carried out are simply deemed too great--indeed, pedophilia is generally considered one of the most heinous crimes. Yes, this entails a great deal of subjective values and the "lines that shall not be crossed" are drawn according to the opinions of those with legal authority. But unless anyone can produce data showing the correlation between possessing these materials and pedophilia to be negligible or at least fairly minor--an impossible task due to data limitations--how else could it be?






Age of consent laws and child pornography laws do not apply to minors. It's perfectly fine for those under the age of consent to sext or have sex with each other. It only becomes a crime for adults who come to possess these materials. While I agree "slut-shaming" is a cancerous relic of our misogynist past that is harmful for both adults and minors alike, it is in no way related to or abetted by laws meant to protect minors.

The "blackmailing assholes" and the "nice friends" are about as different as a kidnappers who abuct using force and those who lure children away with candy. The age of consent is predicated on the idea that the gross power imbalance between an adult and a minor constitute exploitation and violation; how "nicely" one goes about this is irrelevant and hypocritical. As for people who come upon these materials "second hand", they're as guilty as people who keep goods they recognize as being stolen.

Any law that would require an otherwise stable individual to go to therapy with no cause other than their fictional pornographic tastes would be a violation of our basic human rights. There is no argument I'll entertain to say that such laws would be appropriate. I don't agree with the surveillance state. It does harm society.

And at least here, in the US, child pornography laws do extend to minors sexting, furthermore, if a minor were to post pictures of themselves on a public forum, say reddit, for instance, they would be distributing child pornography. There have been multiple high profile cases here to prove this, as well, these teens are placed on sex offender lists, because the laws are written in such a black and white manner that a minor distributing pictures of themselves is apparently equal to a predator taking them against their will.

 

[anne O'nymous]

[...] Ideally, kids wouldn't send naked pictures of themselves to anyone or anywhere. But they have the means to do it, they were almost born with mobile phone attached to their hand, so it will be happening. It may look to them as fun thing to do, if they do it on some publicly accessible service, they'll surely get some "fans", who will praise them, encourage them, ... And I believe that the kids could actually enjoy it at that moment, with no trauma or anything (based on my past experience of being curious young boy, even though I've never done anything like this). There's natural curiosity about sexual things at some age, and while real life contact with adult person would most likely scare me, phone/computer screen can easily shield off the image of some pervert(s), and instead show only nice, supportive and understanding adult friends. Of course, any possible fun quickly ends when some asshole takes the pictures/videos and starts blackmailing the kid.

For me, nude selfies are just the modern "playing doctor". Like you said, there's a natural curiosity about sexuality, and when you're "playing doctor", you don't just discover the body of your partner, you also discover your own and how it please the said partner. That's why so many young post/send candid nudes of themselves. Something like, "hey, is my ass appealing ? And my boobs, do people really love them ?"
But once again, there a difference because, unlike "playing doctor", it's not a thing that happen one time and can be forgot after. This don't mean that some laws must be updated or some age limitation must be raised. Before everything else it's a question of education. Like @darthseduction implied, it had a lot to do with the global sexual repression of the society. By example, studies have demonstrated it, there's more wild behavior among teenagers living in a sexually repressed society, like the USA by example, than among teenagers living in a more open minded one.
Just take girls flashing their boobs in clubs, it tend to be exceptional in Europe, while it's way more frequent in the USA. And there's a reason behind this. Globally in Europe human body isn't seen as necessarily sexualized, which mean that you'll see boobs, ass and even pubic hairs, in G-rated magazines or movies, and showing your boobs at the beach is totally legal. Because of this, what's the matter to flash your own boobs ? There isn't any rebellion behind it, it's not something people never seen and, for a lot of the girls who could have done it, a so many people already saw them last summer when they were sunbathing.
The same can apply for teen pregnancy and STD rate among teenagers. The more you repress sexuality, the more teenagers will want to do it and discover it on their own. There's even at least one study showing that rape rate increase if you ban porn.

Obviously it doesn't mean that pedophilia must be legal, even if, technically speaking, if it was legal then pedophiles wouldn't take the risk to rape a young girls since they could just search one who agree. But like even I said, for this particular case it's way more complex since the notion of "having sex" and consent are biased in too young people mind.
But it mater for adult games and porn in general. The more you'll repress them, the more you'll see rise deviant behaviors in real life. Just because these feeling are already here, and they'll always find a way to express themselves. So, if it can't be in the fantasy of your mind, it will be on the body of a victim...

The question is, what about the next person, who wasn't involved at all, just found the leaked images on internet and intends to keep them, because it's enough for them to help with the urges. Even some sexuologists say that it can work (not necessarily for everyone). Obviously, when they really keep the images for themselves, no one will ever know. But many things can happen, bring a computer for repair, technician finds the stuff, etc. When law criminalizes posession, then everything is clear, guilty, good bye. But it doesn't seem exactly fair, when the only victim can be slightly shocked repair technician, because actions of said person couldn't have any effect on anyone else.

Fun fact, one time it was a robber who discover it, and he called the cops. But you're right, there should be difference between act and possession. Or at least between act and possession of harmless content ; because it's not the same thing to have a bunch of pictures stolen from underage girls/boys, and to have actual child pornography.
Which fall back to the sexual repression of the society. There nothing wrong in the fact to fantasize about this or that, whatever can be the "this" and the "that". What's can eventually be wrong is when it's not anymore just a fantasy. And yes, having fantasies, and expressing them in the privacy of your mind is a sane thing. Psychologically speaking, it's even what prevent you to become insane. Just because, like I said in a previous comment, if these feelings you have don't find a way to exist, they will grow until they become out of control. And here it don't just apply to porn, violent games, by example, play the same sanity role. It's better to pass two days in a row killing everyone in a game, than effectively killing everyone in real life.

Laws aim to both punish and, more importantly, prevent unwanted behaviors, in a practical, enforceable manner.

Excuse me, but what is an "unwanted behavior" and what give you the right to define a behavior as wanted or not ?
Incest is legal in, more or less, half the world, and BDSM is fully illegal in a small part of it. Exposing your boobs is illegal in this country, and totally natural in that one. Twenty years ago homosexuality was a crime in more than half of the USA, and is now legal in all the country. So not only the notion of "unwanted behavior" isn't linked to a religion (topless and incest are legal in Italy, where the Vatican is), nor to a society (things are legal in a US state and illegal in another one), but it's not even a constancy in time.
So, no, laws don't aim to punish nor prevent unwanted behaviors. Their goal is to protect people against the behavior of others. Alas, nowadays it happen too often that they simply aim to repress what is actually seen as deviancy. And, no, "unwanted behavior" and "deviancy" aren't the same thing. Being anti-militarist or faping to incest games is seen as deviancy, while example of unwanted behavior can be racism or homophobia. Just because having incest fantasy or being against war isn't a behavior, it's a thinking, while expressing hate over others is a behavior... But well, you're more likely to be targeted because you love incest porn and dislike the army, than you are because you spread hate all around you.
Amusingly, on Patreon there's nothing preventing you to create a porn game where nuns devote their life to Satan and pass their nights doing BDSM lesbian consensual satanist orgies, but you can't create a game when a father and her almost unknew daughter legitimately and romantically fall in love. The first one is the expression of a freedom of belief, the second a totally depraved perversity which must be silenced at all cost...

Insofar as no one can read minds or see the future, preventing crimes require using (most likely imperfectly) correlated behaviors as predictors.

What crimes have to do with "unwanted behaviors" ? In what way being topless at the beach can harm someone ? In what way saying "fuck" in a movie can harm someone ? In what way the fact that I play rape games in the privacy of my own bedroom can harm anyone ? I what way the fact that @darthseduction play incest games and look at loli in his room harm is little sister ?
And if it's a question of offense, then why any girl and boy in the USA are required to recite the pledge of allegiance, to the flag and God even when they don't believe in god or in that particular god ? This is a behavior which effectively harm others ; this is an offense to everyone who believe in another god or prefer to not believe. But also a perfectly legal and wanted behavior since, not only it's not against the law to do it, but it sometime is against the law to not do it.

Are there people who possess real or fictional child pornography without the intent or ability to ever have sex with a child? Of course. But a pedophile is far more likely to possess these materials than a random person drawn from the general population; therefore, it can serve as a predictor for potential pedophiles.

Honestly ? No, and no.
A pedophile is less likely to possess fictional child pornography. They don't care about fiction, they care only about the real thing and, alas, there's way enough material for them to have. That's why police all over the world don't really give a shit about all those fictional child pornography. It's only lawmakers who care about them, because it please a part of the electors ; and also because it don't make it commonplace.
As for the predictor part, it's even less true. Someone having fictional child pornography is less likely to become a pedophile in the future, that someone who don't own it. It's not me who say it, it's decades of psychological studies. The more you repress your feelings, the more they will explode and you'll go wild.

Just as cop wouldn't wait for someone who pulls out a gun at a traffic stop to actually fire,

Er... you forget the "in the USA and really only in the USA". Even in countries as dangerous as Brazil or Columbia, cops don't fire at sigh. Even in countries actually at war, like Afghanistan or Iraq, they don't do it. No, it really happen only in the USA. In 2015, one of the cops who died during the terrorist attacks in France had a gun. But it don't used it because at this particular time it would have increased the risk for civilians. So he tried to stop them without shooting everywhere. It's "serve and protect", not "serve and save your own life at the cost of innocents". This said, don't make me say what I haven't said, there's way more "good" cops in the USA than wild sheriff.

Sorry, but I can't agree with a thinking stating that prevention is more important than actual action ; that it's better to be sorry than to take a single risk, even if this risk have less than 0.001% chance to happen. Especially since it doesn't works. The USA is one of the countries where child sexual abuse rate is the higher. Same for the rape rate, this while the actual definition of rape is laxer than in most of the western countries. And haven't you learned from the Prohibition ?
But well, As long as it's banned in all its form, then everything is good, right ? And whatever if you'll soon be more likely to end in jail because you own illegal porn, than you actually are to do it for actually raping someone.
Those aren't laws to prevent "unwanted behaviors", it's laws to hide the reality and give a false sentiment of safety.

There have been multiple high profile cases here to prove this, as well, these teens are placed on sex offender lists, because the laws are written in such a black and white manner that a minor distributing pictures of themselves is apparently equal to a predator taking them against their will.

Out of curiosity, are you still put on the offender list because you took a leak in a public place, even if no one can actually see you ?

 

[DarthSeduction]

Out of curiosity, are you still put on the offender list because you took a leak in a public place, even if no one can actually see you ?

If you get arrested for it, then you must have been exposed in a place where someone could see you. So yeah, you can.

 

[spambot]

Any law that would require an otherwise stable individual to go to therapy with no cause other than their fictional pornographic tastes would be a violation of our basic human rights. There is no argument I'll entertain to say that such laws would be appropriate. I don't agree with the surveillance state. It does harm society.

And at least here, in the US, child pornography laws do extend to minors sexting, furthermore, if a minor were to post pictures of themselves on a public forum, say reddit, for instance, they would be distributing child pornography. There have been multiple high profile cases here to prove this, as well, these teens are placed on sex offender lists, because the laws are written in such a black and white manner that a minor distributing pictures of themselves is apparently equal to a predator taking them against their will.

While technically true in many jurisdictions, minors are seldom charged with child pornography in practice. And in the few cases where they are charged, it is only tacked on to more serious offenses like harrassment, stalking, or distributing materials without consent. There is already a general trend across different jurisdictions of distinguishing child pornography from sexting to explicitly exclude minors from being charged in this way. Attacking existing laws over this non-issue is disingenuous at best.

Honestly ? No, and no.
A pedophile is less likely to possess fictional child pornography. They don't care about fiction, they care only about the real thing and, alas, there's way enough material for them to have. That's why police all over the world don't really give a shit about all those fictional child pornography. It's only lawmakers who care about them, because it please a part of the electors ; and also because it don't make it commonplace.
As for the predictor part, it's even less true. Someone having fictional child pornography is less likely to become a pedophile in the future, that someone who don't own it. It's not me who say it, it's decades of psychological studies. The more you repress your feelings, the more they will explode and you'll go wild.

Amazing! In that case, I guess people who watch gay porn are more likely than not straight, those who watch bdsm probably aren't into bondage, Fox viewers are probably liberal Democrats, and people to read ISIS propaganda are statistically less likely to a potenial jihadist.

Btw, which alternate reality are you from?

 

[DarthSeduction]

While technically true in many jurisdictions, minors are seldom charged with child pornography in practice. And in the few cases where they are charged, it is only tacked on to more serious offenses like harrassment, stalking, or distributing materials without consent. There is already a general trend across different jurisdictions of distinguishing child pornography from sexting to explicitly exclude minors from being charged in this way. Attacking existing laws over this non-issue is disingenuous at best.

That last sentence might be the most disingenuous thing that has ever been written. Please tell me how the teen getting charged with disseminating child pornography of herself was guilty of harrassment, stalking, or distributing materials without consent? Are you just so determined to be right? The law allows the government to ruin a minor's life over bullshit. It is wrong.

Furthermore, I prove anne's point. I'm not a pedophile, yet fictional depictions of cartoon underage girls can still excite me. I'm not rushing down to the local elementary school to watch the girls, because real little girls don't excite me. It's the inherent sexualization of them in these fictional depictions that makes them work, not their age, which simply acts as a similar taboo trigger to incest or bestiality or rape. How many people are into rape play who would never actually rape a woman? How many people are into bestiality who would never actually fuck a horse? Seriously, think before you speak.

 

[anne O'nymous]

While technically true in many jurisdictions, minors are seldom charged with child pornography in practice. And in the few cases where they are charged, it is only tacked on to more serious offenses like harrassment, stalking, or distributing materials without consent. [...] Attacking existing laws over this non-issue is disingenuous at best.

January 2018 : this

You must be registered to see the links

is charged for child pornography because her boyfriend copied the nude she sent to him, and distributed it among his friends. She is the victim, but she's the one facing the charges. I fail to see how this can be a "non-issue", like I failed to see where can be the harassment, stalking or the distribution of material without consent...

Amazing! In that case, I guess people who watch gay porn are more likely than not straight [...]

There's a lot of straight men, and even women, who like gay hentai, like there's people who play BDSM games but don't practice it in real life ; whatever it's by lack of self confidence, lack of trust, or simply because it excite them only when it's purely fictional.
Because apparently you failed to understood that "fiction" isn't equal to "reality". Especially for pedophilia, or BDSM to keep one of your example. There's more than one dimension related to these practices, and games failed to depict them correctly. By example, the feeling of power, or submission, you get playing a BDSM game have nothing in common with the one you get doing it for real. Of course, BDSM adepts can enjoy playing a BDSM game, but it still stay far away from what they feel during a real session. They are passive when they play them, a simple witness of a fictional depiction. So, it's a good fap material, but the pleasure isn't as intense as the real thing.
The same apply for fictional child pornography. You rarely see terror or, worse, total abandon of all hope, in the eyes of loli in fictional child pornography, and even less in games. Even when they depict corruption, the victim consent to this corruption, which is far from modern pedophilia. Both loli and shota aren't a good depiction of pedophilia, and we must feel happy for this.
This is even found in a lot of laws around the world. They don't address pedophilia by itself but child abuse and sexual assault. As long as the partner is old enough (generally around 13 for minor with minor, and around 15 for minor with anyone), the notion of consent is enough to remove all possible charges (unless it's also incest, which need that both partner are over 18 in countries where it's legal). And even when the partner is younger than that, these laws make a difference between a sexual act without violence, and a sexual assault ; you'll not face the same sentence if you make love to a naive young boy/girl, than if you forced him/her, whatever physically or psychologically, to perform a sexual act with you. Games depict the first (literal pedophilia), while modern pedophilia is the second.

To this, you must add the fact that, well, it's a fiction. Like you aren't a rapist because you play rape games or a serial killer because you love to play FPS, you aren't pedophile because you play loli/shota games. Once again, because you clearly missed this part, it's not me who say that fiction help to keep your impulses under control, these ones included, it's all the studies made on the subject during the three/four last decades.
This said, if you prefer to stand on your position than learn something, it's your right. But playing dumb in your answer can only serve your point when you argue with someone less educated than you. To take at my count one of your arguments, perhaps that you should watch Fox News time to time, just to not stay stuck on a unique point of view of the reality.

Furthermore, I prove anne's point.

And my own daughter also prove it. She was 11 years old when my wife died, and strangely the loli lover I am never assaulted her. I even look somewhere else when I accidentally cross her way while she is half dressed.

 

[DarthSeduction]

January 2018 : this

You must be registered to see the links

is charged for child pornography because her boyfriend copied the nude she sent to him, and distributed it among his friends. She is the victim, but she's the one facing the charges. I fail to see how this can be a "non-issue", like I failed to see where can be the harassment, stalking or the distribution of material without consent...




There's a lot of straight men, and even women, who like gay hentai, like there's people who play BDSM games but don't practice it in real life ; whatever it's by lack of self confidence, lack of trust, or simply because it excite them only when it's purely fictional.
Because apparently you failed to understood that "fiction" isn't equal to "reality". Especially for pedophilia, or BDSM to keep one of your example. There's more than one dimension related to these practices, and games failed to depict them correctly. By example, the feeling of power, or submission, you get playing a BDSM game have nothing in common with the one you get doing it for real. Of course, BDSM adepts can enjoy playing a BDSM game, but it still stay far away from what they feel during a real session. They are passive when they play them, a simple witness of a fictional depiction. So, it's a good fap material, but the pleasure isn't as intense as the real thing.
The same apply for fictional child pornography. You rarely see terror or, worse, total abandon of all hope, in the eyes of loli in fictional child pornography, and even less in games. Even when they depict corruption, the victim consent to this corruption, which is far from modern pedophilia. Both loli and shota aren't a good depiction of pedophilia, and we must feel happy for this.
This is even found in a lot of laws around the world. They don't address pedophilia by itself but child abuse and sexual assault. As long as the partner is old enough (generally around 13 for minor with minor, and around 15 for minor with anyone), the notion of consent is enough to remove all possible charges (unless it's also incest, which need that both partner are over 18 in countries where it's legal). And even when the partner is younger than that, these laws make a difference between a sexual act without violence, and a sexual assault ; you'll not face the same sentence if you make love to a naive young boy/girl, than if you forced him/her, whatever physically or psychologically, to perform a sexual act with you. Games depict the first (literal pedophilia), while modern pedophilia is the second.

To this, you must add the fact that, well, it's a fiction. Like you aren't a rapist because you play rape games or a serial killer because you love to play FPS, you aren't pedophile because you play loli/shota games. Once again, because you clearly missed this part, it's not me who say that fiction help to keep your impulses under control, these ones included, it's all the studies made on the subject during the three/four last decades.
This said, if you prefer to stand on your position than learn something, it's your right. But playing dumb in your answer can only serve your point when you argue with someone less educated than you. To take at my count one of your arguments, perhaps that you should watch Fox News time to time, just to not stay stuck on a unique point of view of the reality.




And my own daughter also prove it. She was 11 years old when my wife died, and strangely the loli lover I am never assaulted her. I even look somewhere else when I accidentally cross her way while she is half dressed.

Actually no, don't watch fox news. Studies show that fox news viewers know less about what's going on in the world than people who watch no news at all. That's how heavy the propaganda is.