Sexual crimes are usually about power, anger and sex in that order...sex being the reason for the minority of offences...so you are correct KKOriginally Posted by kenkannif
It actually can be....I'll lend you the Brasseye episode one day!Originally Posted by Jellybean
Riddle me this brother can you handle it
Your style to my style you can't hold a candle to it
Equinox symmetry and the balance is right
Smokin' and drinkin' on a Tuesday night
It's not how you play the game it's how you win it
I cheat and steal and sin and I'm a cynic
you got it mate. that's why it's probably not the fairest thing to be murdering them...Originally Posted by jimbo
when a topic becomes taboo we're running scared from it, we admit defeat. nothing to be learnt, nothing to be gained...Originally Posted by kenkannif
Last edited by Well; 30th October 2007 at 15:11. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
"so please show no pity as we come up from the ground, and please remember as you kill us and cut us down that time will not wash clean the bloody face of history, and someone will breathe here again and they will hate you for what you leave." m.g.
I think pedoes really (even though to us what they do is shocking) should be treated as other mentally ill people are....by putting them in a mental home...surely?
I was thinking actually as technology gets better they'll soon be able to make kiddy dolls for them to shag (for the ones that just need that....or maybe VR to 'help' them).
Hard one really!
INTERESTING KEN!! I'll be emailing my prof. with that idea! He's perplexed with this issue as well and deals with violators daily.Originally Posted by kenkannif
Life in a mental institution with a doll......interesting stuff!
Yes, it was, but really no different than putting younger women in institutions on the birth control pill. Pretty similar medication, too.Originally Posted by Well
Not sure if it will stop the 'power' ones, but if they're well realistic....maybe they will. Then again cost will probably factor in to it!Originally Posted by jimbo
But I certainly think there are specific ways to help specific people with problems rather than just lumping them in to the old 'evil' category....I personally think you'd have to be a fair bit mental to wake up one day and think 'right I'm going to fuck me an 7 year old today'....I just think what if it was me like that, or my son (that was mental)....you'd want some compassion and/or understanding rather than 'hang him', 'kill 'im' etc.
Reminds me a bit of the studies citing that areas with legal (or "allowable") prostitution have the lowest numbers of rape.
For me that's not really being a pedo....just a bit impatientOriginally Posted by josh_ingu
I did actually mention using 'fake' kiddie porn on another thread about pedoes (I think when Prowler was caught).....makes sense (and if it stops one and doesn't increase any of the others...it's worth it IMO).I was reading an interesting article yesterday. I was actually loooking for a quotation that I saw years ago, which seemed apt for these threads - it ran along the lines of (paraphrasing from memory) : The more henious the crime, the more we are obligated to ensure that justice is administered fairly" (I would like the quotation if some one can find it!).
*Anyway*, the article was (IIRC) a decision handed down by the American supreme court (yeah, I read some weird stuff), dealing with the subject of - well, "virtual child porn" I suppose sums it up. The American government banned computer generated images of child porn. Computer technology was being used to alter image of consenting adults, to make it *look* as though one of the participants was a child, and the Americans slapped down a law that it was illegal. The judgement of the court (as I read it) was that this was illegal as it was against the first Amendment (free speech? - I could go check). Any percieved or potential damage was not sufficient weight to ban the images. Indeed, even the *potential* of future damage to kids was not sufficient to out weigh the first amendment.
Indeed, it was even pointed out that a mass surge in the "virtual" kiddie porn market may even *protect* children, as who would risk the punishments associated with real kiddie when the virtual stuff was risk free. Twas an interesting, and well thought out argument (much more comprehensive than my re-hash of it).
It *does* give the potential of sating the "needs" of paedophiles, while protecting kids....
Ooops....should say that that for all my niceness...if any fucker fucked my kid they would be dead if I ever got my hands on them!!! Human condition of hypocrisy huh?
Last edited by kenkannif; 30th October 2007 at 16:03. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
^But that is assuming that people will substitute porn for sex. Sorry that was for KKs post.
I dont think it works that way.
Do any of you who watch porn, feel that you dont need sex?
^ My problem with the law in general is that it's generally black and white and doesn't really look at the individual case or the specifics of the individual etc. If you get what I mean?
I think most places have that. Below 10 is in most places has greater penalties than below 14 and so on.Originally Posted by josh_ingu
It does in some cases (as I said even if it works with one but doesn't make more it's been a success).Originally Posted by Jellybean
Well it's not just the watching babe...it's the hand movements that go with it that stop me wanting the sex....and I've used it here over the years and saved a shit load of money. I even used to call shagging a whore in the 'Dam as a 'posh wank' as opposed to sex!!!Do any of you who watch porn, feel that you dont need sex?
If it didn't work there'd probably not be so many porn sites, sex chat lines etc.
I think as a bird...you're find it difficult to understand You girlies aren't such wankers as us men
Well, I think it does. Consensual sex between teenagers is not punished except for that silly case in the US recently.Originally Posted by kenkannif
Nope.Originally Posted by Jellybean
Does anyone know (maybe already covered) do the sexual consent age laws of your country follow you to other countries? Is that the dealio now? I'm a bit confused about this agreement signed between countries.
I'm also wondering why no charges were ever filed against Christopher from Korea. Could it be that nothing happened, Koreans don't want to face up, or that CAN laws don't apply and he stayed over 13 yrs.?