Jared Fogle & Subway

[Tiberius]

Since the topic of child porn has come up, how do people feel about simulated child porn; that is, child porn which doesn't actually use any children, but instead uses child-like animations / renderings.

IMO, if it is a suitable replacement that pedophiles can use to get a "release" without harming children, I wouldn't want it banned.

[robvalue]

I think it's a good idea and perhaps the only viable solution, I've thought about that before. However, I imagine it causing public outrage. Slippery slope arguments galore.

[Dystopia]

Since the topic of child porn has come up, how do people feel about simulated child porn; that is, child porn which doesn't actually use any children, but instead uses child-like animations / renderings.

IMO, if it is a suitable replacement that pedophiles can use to get a "release" without harming children, I wouldn't want it banned.

I'm indifferent to that as much as I'm indifferent to rape porn simulating rape acts that are, of course, not really happening and consented by participants. However, it is necessary to be careful with the argument of releasing libido because in some cases, content might lead viewers to search for hardcore content until they reach a point they have to do it in real life. I'm not saying this is the case for most people, but it can happen.

Aside, some people will not feel satisfied by animated images, they will want something more realistic and believable, and can eventually stumble upon real CP.

[paulpablo]

I think it's a good idea and perhaps the only viable solution, I've thought about that before. However, I imagine it causing public outrage. Slippery slope arguments galore.

I think the slippery slope argument is valid although I think it's a 50 50 split whether a person could either think "That's great I'm satisfied."  Or "That's great, let me try that."

In my own experience most of the content of the porn I've ever watched has led me to want to try, or continue trying, what I've been watching. Although there have been a minority of things I've watched but probably will never try at least not yet but satisfy my need to watch it. Nothing illegal though.

[Cato]

Great more mental health stigmatisation.

A person doesn't get to choose, Cato, whether they're sexually attracted to children. All they get to chose is how to respond. I believe that most paedophiles choose not to act on their sexual urges in an inappropriate way. However I imagine that even if they don't act on their urges a number of them would turn to child pornography. And childporn itself could act as a "gateway" for at-risk people to then actually offend.

Oh horseshit. I never said that it was a choice. I simply pointed out that its stupid to attempt to provide gradation to a condition with discrete options. You are now attempting to conflate the condition, sexually attracted to kids or not, with behavior. Whether or not someone actually has sex with a child does not change their attraction. If I'm not mistaken, this is the crux of your stigma campaign.

Using your behavior criteria I suppose you would consider nuns mildly heterosexual; or homosexual as the case may be. If I fuck everyday am I severely heterosexual? What's the cutoff for mild, once a month? It's absurd.

[Exian]

Who gives a shit the degree in which someone is stricken with pedophilia? All that matters is how we act in practice. For instance, I just assume every god damned person is in to kids and don't allow anyone to be alone with my daughter. The severity of pedophilia doesn't weigh in. We all look for neoteny in our mates, all of our non-pedo porn has the youngest possible actors while still being legal in pigtails and school girl uniforms. Which should tell you the amount of people you should trust with your child- damn near zero. If you want to protect your child, you shouldn't be trying to figure out the gradation of pedophilia in a person, you should be assuming 100%.

[Aractus]

Completely agree Aractus. Pedophilia is a diagnosable disorder; people seem to forget that.

People also seen to forget that pedophilia isn't illegal, nor should it be. Having feelings of sexual attraction (which you can't control) shouldn't be punished in any fair justice system. Acting on those feelings, when the party you are acting on cannot consent (as in the case of sexual intercourse with a minor) is illegal.

There are likely pedophiles (perhaps most pedophiles) who do not act on their sexual attractions, just as most people do not rape people they are sexually attracted to. Unfortunately the only pedophiles you tend to hear about are the ones that are caught breaking the law.

Same things happens if someone is diagnosed with psychopathy, or psychosis, and then to a lesser extent other disorders.

....except for the children being raped and exploited to create the videos.

But, you know, nobody else is getting hurt.

I'd be okay with that so long as all they access is 1970's Danish child pornography (that was produced legally) and not child abuse material. If you can find it. Though do note that possessing such material is a criminal offence in and of itself, so I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

Probably needs a topic of it's own, but the Jimmy Savile case has been astonishing on several levels.  That Subway did nothing as early as 2008 correlates with the apparently massive numbers of reports on Savile that resulted in no action.

I'm still thinking the Savile case is 'unique' in the reported diversity of his offenses.

Yep what a goddamned creep.

Since the topic of child porn has come up, how do people feel about simulated child porn; that is, child porn which doesn't actually use any children, but instead uses child-like animations / renderings.

IMO, if it is a suitable replacement that pedophiles can use to get a "release" without harming children, I wouldn't want it banned.

It's no different to actual child-porn if the actors are portrayed as minors, and the people who produce such content are absolute creeps that abuse women, and dare I say actually rape them (such as Paul F. Little). Just because he's never been convicted of it doesn't mean shit, look up the Bakky videos.

[Aractus]

Oh horseshit. I never said that it was a choice. I simply pointed out that its stupid to attempt to provide gradation to a condition with discrete options. You are now attempting to conflate the condition, sexually attracted to kids or not, with behavior. Whether or not someone actually has sex with a child does not change their attraction. If I'm not mistaken, this is the crux of your stigma campaign.

Using your behavior criteria I suppose you would consider nuns mildly heterosexual; or homosexual as the case may be. If I fuck everyday am I severely heterosexual? What's the cutoff for mild, once a month? It's absurd.

Do you realise that a diagnoses of suffering from "mild" paedophilia actually implies he had a lot more freedom from his urges than someone suffering from "severe" paedophilia, thus means Jared complete control over his actions and the diagnosis works against him and for the prosecution in effect?

[Cato]

Do you realise that a diagnoses of suffering from "mild" paedophilia actually implies he had a lot more freedom from his urges than someone suffering from "severe" paedophilia, thus means Jared complete control over his actions and the diagnosis works against him and for the prosecution in effect?

This was not an aide to the prosecution for seeking a conviction. The conviction was based on the evidence for Jared fucking underage girls. I have no problem acknowledging this type of reasoning being used in sentencing though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So turns out Jared is a paedophile, and has had sex with under-age people and possessed child pornography.

But there are two things that are interesting to me here. The first is the stigmatisation of "paedophiles"; and the second is the report that Subway was told about his behaviour by a franchisee in 2008 and did nothing.

The stigmatisation is clear because a psychiatrist testified in court that Jared has "mild paedophilia", and the judge said words to the effect of "that's not a proper diagnosis"... um, yes it is. Any mental disorder can be characterised as being mild, moderate, or severe or anything in-between. And furthermore, it's a part of human sexuality - and sexuality can't be accurately defined within boundaries. Some people are only sexually attracted to children, but others are sexually attracted to adults as well and perhaps this is what the psychiatrist meant. Still others that abuse children may not be true paedophiles (that is sexually attracted to them) and may be purely an act of violence like rape.

My hair-splitter's in the shop for sharpening. I personally believe that anyone who molests children ought to be stigmatized -- and removed from society, for that matter. Whether that molestation gives the pedophile sexual gratification or relief of violent impulses is to me irrelevant.