A computer administrator has been jailed

[EternalOptimist]

question for SallyAnne.

how old are you in your avatar ? Everytime I see it I get a boner and I'm not sure if I am a perv or merely a red-blooded male

[Diver]

question for SallyAnne.

how old are you in your avatar ? Everytime I see it I get a boner and I'm not sure if I am a perv or merely a red-blooded male

Myopic (it's a cartoon)

[OwlHoot]

.. I appreciate the "it's people like that who perpetuate the child p*rn market" argument, and I guess anything we can do to stop that is good....but isn't it good that these people are sorting out their sick "urges" by using photos already out there, than doing it to real kids?
And let the police concentrate on the people making the photos?

I read somewhere that newcomers can only enter a child porn ring by providing a certain number of photos they've taken themselves, to prove they're "genuine".

But that aside, I suppose your question largely amounts to whether viewing porn images of a certain kind (not necessarily kiddie porn) makes a person more likely to want to act out the scenes or remain content with the images, and that in turn depends on the person.

FWIW, I believe there are two kinds of paedo, who are, paradoxically, at the opposite ends of a scale. On one hand, you have died-in-the-wool paedos focused on kids to the exclusion of all else, and on the other there are those whose fancies drift all over the place and not necessarily solely involving kids. Not sure how a psychologist would describe the latter, "weak sexual identity" or something?

My guess is the first class are very likely to act out their fantasies, and plan their whole life around this. By contrast, I suspect the second lot (probably a much larger class) would be very unlikely to go out of their way, or be encouraged to act on porn, although in the wrong situation at the wrong time they might stray.

P.S. Do we really need blood-curdling, hysterical rants about what we'd do with paedos every time this topic comes up? Can't we just take it as read that everyone hates them and would hunt them down to the ends of the Earth and roast them over a slow fire at any provocation?

[DodgyAgent]

Oh what a stupid thing to say.

I dont have kids, therefore I dont mind any of them being abused?

Have a word with yourself man.

Until you have children you cannot possibly understand just how vulnerable they are. No one will deny you the right to have an opinion, but not having children diminishes any objectivity that your opinions may hold.

My other point is this. If you harbour demonic desires whether it be a desire to have sex with children or being raped, then as soon as you look at a picture on the internet you are creating a market for illegal activities.

If someone cannot control their thoughts then fine there is little that can be done about it. But once you do something, such as look up pictures, you are then contributing to the abuse.

[Platypus]

I read somewhere that newcomers can only enter a child porn ring by providing a certain number of photos they've taken themselves, to prove they're "genuine".

But didn't this person collect them over file-sharing networks, exactly the same way that music and film are downloaded? No mention of a "ring" in the article.

[OwlHoot]

A computer administrator has been jailed for 18 months for possessing nearly half a million indecent images of children

Not trying to defend this maniac, and I'm sure many if not most of his images were of pre-pubsecent children and even infants, but I thought it would be worth mentioning that in around 2000 the Labour government raised the legal definition of "child" in relation to porn from 16 to 18.

So in theory all this guy's half a million images could be of strapping 17 year old teenagers!

I think raising the legal age to 18 was a mistake (aping the Septics yet again) because, like it or not, a very large proportion of people do like drooling over 16 year olds, and if denied legal sources of images are more likely to be drawn to those which don't differentiate much younger subjects. In fact, by doing this the Government has probably made the problem of child porn much worse!

[Diver]

P.S. Do we really need blood-curdling, hysterical rants about what we'd do with paedos every time this topic comes up? Can't we just take it as read that everyone hates them and would hunt them down to the ends of the Earth and roast them over a slow fire at any provocation?

I find it helps fuel MY fantasies

[SallyAnne]

Until you have children you cannot possibly understand just how vulnerable they are.

Complete nonsense.

But once you do something, such as look up pictures, you are then contributing to the abuse.

Yes, this has to be true.
I'm just not sure how much of a crime it is yet, and I think that is my overall point.

For example, I wouldn't want my husband locked up for contributing to the illegal sex trade for example if he got found with some snidey dvd's off his mate and it turns out the lasses were 15 year old Albanions or something.

Or 19 year old nigerian lasses who'd been forced into it.

There's just such a grey area.

[DodgyAgent]

Complete nonsense.





Yes, this has to be true.
I'm just not sure how much of a crime it is yet, and I think that is my overall point.

For example, I wouldn't want my husband locked up for contributing to the illegal sex trade for example if he got found with some snidey dvd's off his mate and it turns out the lasses were 15 year old Albanions or something.

Or 19 year old nigerian lasses who'd been forced into it.



There's just such a grey area.

The "grey" area is not a question of right or wrong it is a question of being wrongly accused.

[SallyAnne]

Not trying to defend this maniac, and I'm sure many if not most of his images were of pre-pubsecent children and even infants, but I thought it would be worth mentioning that in around 2000 the Labour government raised the legal definition of "child" in relation to porn from 16 to 18.

So in theory all this guy's half a million images could be of strapping 17 year old teenagers!

I think raising the legal age to 18 was a mistake (aping the Septics yet again) because, like it or not, a very large proportion of people do like drooling over 16 year olds, and if denied legal sources of images are more likely to be drawn to those which don't differentiate much younger subjects. In fact, by doing this the Government has probably made the problem of child porn much worse!

You really are wise like owl!