+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: The Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=408)
+--- Thread: Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes (/showthread.php?tid=11893)
RE: Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes - seth - 25-09-2009 18:13
Another thing, I'm not sure paedophilia has anything to do with being abused as a child or being sexually repressed. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, it's the person's sexuality.
RE: Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes - IanG - 28-09-2009 02:21
(25-09-2009 18:13 )seth Wrote: Another thing, I'm not sure paedophilia has anything to do with being abused as a child or being sexually repressed. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, it's the person's sexuality.
Agreed but, it isn't normal in the scheme of things. We are generally attracted to people of a similar age and stage of sexual development for the purpose of creating sexual relationships and procreation.
I'm not sayng you're wrong but there must be some explanation why there's a disproportionate number of paedophile priests. As I said, celibacy isn't normal. We're here to perpetuate our species, not worship imaginery super beings, and that requires us to have sex with someone of breeding age, not a prepubescent child and definitely not no one.
If there's a genetic or congenital component to paedophila (like there seems to be with homosexuality), then we'd expect no skewing in the distribution of paedophiles in the priesthood - it should be the same as the general population. I'm not sure what the actual figure is but, based on the number of convicted paedophiles in jail at any time in the UK, the proportion is something like 1 in 10,000 (7000 in 60,000,000). Compare this to the claimed 1 in 16 priests that have been accused of sex abuse. That's about 0.01% of the general population compared to 6% in the priesthood.
A possibility that spirings to mind is that 'celibate' priests' bodies are crying out for sex but because of their vows they cannot have sex with an available adult so pick on children who are easier to control and who might not be savvy enough to know they're being used and abused. You can't pull the wool over an adult's eyes, they know a priest isn't supposed to have sex, and such knowledge gives them power and leverage over someone who's supposed to be a pillar of christian society.
Paedophilia certainly is a sexuality but, it is a deviant sexuality - at least far as the law, society and indeed, evolutionary procreation, sees normality. There is however a caveat to my asserrtion regarding similar aged partnerships. Unlike women, men do not become infertile in middle age. Indeed, men are somewhat predisposed to seek out virile young women to bear them healthy offspring. It could be that paedophilia is an over-extension of this phenomena but, that's rather similar to what I said before about paedophles possessing an immature sexual psyche. If you're physically mature but psycho-sexually immature then the likelihood to view young children as potential sex partners is quite high.
I think the law and society in general are unlikely to ever grant paedophilia recognition as a real/alternate sexuality. But if it is something over which the person has no control whatsoever, then they should be afforded all the protections guaranteed in the Human Rights Act - that I think is near impossible in the current climate of press-induced hysteria and child protection lobbies painting these 'sufferers' as evil perverts.
Until we know for certain what causes paedophilia we're not going to be able to tackle it at the source. Indeed, until we understand it, we do not know that the measures in law are not adding to the problem - I for one would say they are adding to the problem because they prevent any legal access to materials that could act as a safe outlet for paedophilic sexual frustration (and that cannot be making children safer, can it?).
There is no evidence that any materials/media can 'reinforce unhealthy fantasies'. However, this is the argument used to justify censorship of any such materials. As a heterosexual male, I do not need vanilla porn to reinforce my sexual fantasies or desires for women. I'm sure homosexuals do not need homosexual porn to reinforce their feelings and fantasies for same sex partners either. Why then does anyone believe child molesting perverts need child porn to reinforce their deviant fantasies and feelings for children? As ever, the police, the Government and our censors are talking shite. I'd much rather wank to a porno than satiate my lustful frustration by raping someone. I'm sure the same goes for homosexuals in a similar state. Why then can't people accept that paedophiles could probably moderate their behaviour if given the chance? Ok, I don't know how you might produce legal child porn but, this Government are about to make cutie 'lolicon' Hentai illegal to possess. It's already illegal to possess material which "appears" to show people under 18 having sex (even if they're well over 18 at the time of photography). People are tackling the symptom not the cause, indeed, they're banning legal pornographic material for fear it will increase abuse when in all other cases its known to satiate desire not inflame it. They are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, and no good can come of that at all.
RE: Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes - seth - 28-09-2009 17:36
You're right, paedophilia or homosexuality are IMO both deviant in regards to sexual behaviour. In regards to priests, you may be right, it could be they choose children because they can't have sex with an adult through fear of being snitched on and booted out of the catholic faith. It could also be, because many priests are secretly paedophiles, and try to use religion as a way of avoiding offending. Believe it or not, there are many paedophiles out there who've never harmed a child at all, yet have hidden these urges to themselves and suffered in silence, similar to a gay man trying to be straight.
I don't think a paedophile is mentally ill, they have a an abnormal sexual orientation, but they themselves are sane. You can treat a mental illness, you can't change somebodies sexuality, no matter what treatment is given. They tried a similar thing with homosexuals years ago, and it never worked, and the same with paedophiles.
I think paedophilia is something to do with genetics. It's a myth that all paedophiles were abused as children, many have actually lived a normal childhood like most of us.
In regards to child porn, I think it's right that it's illegal. In everyone one of those vids or pics some child is being abused, that itself, is enough reason for child porn to stay illegal. And also, child porn won't prevent a paedophile from offending if he/she is the type of person that wants to.
RE: Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes - IanG - 29-09-2009 13:05
Seth, no one is being abused in a cartoon or drawing yet, this Government are about to make it a criminal offence to possess so-called 'dangerous drawings'. Recently the advertising watchdog, the ASA, banned an ad that featured a 23 year-old fashion model posng in, and unzipping a hoodie - someone complained she looked too young and the ASA announced that she "appeared to be an under 16-year-old in a sexualised pose". It's not child porn yet, such is the hysteria they treat it as such. Moreover, if travesties like this are allowed to continue - i.e. allowing people to judge others on incorrect assumptions of a model's age - then people will (indeed DO) go to jail as convicted paedophiles when clearly they're not in possession of illegal material. I heard of a case just a few years ago when the defence had to fly a porn star over from the USA to verify to the court she was well over 18 when she made a film some poor sod was about to serve 7 years for possessing. Justice is supposed to be about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What we've got though is speculation, assumption and ignorance. It was pure luck that this woman was a known porn star - just think of all those webcam girls that "appear to be under 18" but who are in fact 18+. And if we can't judge how old real people are just by their appearance, how exactly are you to tell how old a cartoon character is supposed to be?
I'm all for trying to prevent child abuse but redefining childhood well into young adulthood isn't really helping. The age of consent used to be 12, then 15, then 16 and now, as far as taking candid pictures goes, its 18. This doesn't help the situation, it just entraps more and more hapless people because its very easy for someone of 23 to look "under 16" (apparently). It's not right and its not just, its not even justified.
Across most of Europe the age of consent is 14 and adult films are rated 16 not 18 - and in none of those countries are the rates of teen pregnancies and STIs anything like as bad as in the UK. Whatever we think we're doing to protect young people it clearly isn't working and, moreover, if there is some link (as psychologists believe) between sexually repressive environs and sexual deviance, we're probably doing entirely the wrong thing.
RE: Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes - seth - 29-09-2009 14:32
I agree with you, someone 16 plus should be legal to watch, It's ridiculous they're making assumptions on someone's age. I thought you'd need to prove someone's underage not over. I never knew of this, that's pretty shocking actually.
I was referring to the really sick shit staying illegal, like little children.
RE: Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes - IanG - 30-09-2009 02:01
Seth, no one, let alone a child, should ever suffer abuse.
I'm with you on the 16 age limit, however, I'd say 13 should be the threshold for determining child abuse from a picture alone. It's not as if 13-year-olds don't know what sex is and, indeed, are old enough to give consent or withhold it and, are capable of reporting abuse if they've been abused.
Here's a short article on what the Government are planning re cartoons
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/19/evil_cartoon_badness/
Note the bit about 'how you can tell'..."if the predominent impression is that of a child even if some of the features are not those of a child". Say what? That to me sounds like every Hentai 'schoolgirl' - looks about 16 in her sailor suit uniform and ponytails and has no pubes ('cos the Japs don't like 'em) but yet, has massive bouncy tits. 'How can you tell'?...YOU CAN'T so go straight to jail, do not pass go and do not collect £200, but you can sign the sex offenders register when you get out after 3 years.
Of course, its all very reasonable if you're a child molester but, if you're just a hapless Hentai fan its a bit rough don't you think?
Oh, you might also like to know that both the Yanks and Aussies have implemented these insane laws and folks in both jurisdictions have already been sent down for possessing those Bart and Lisa Simpson 'incest' cartoons.
There's no place in law for hysterical over reactions and this is by far the worst case of hysterical bullshit I've seen since the Government invented 'extreme porn'.