all 8 comments

[–]hennaojisan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This guy is getting all the breaks, probably because at least one ex-president is involved.

[–]breakfast 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All people that go as far as president have done fucked up shit bc that's how the frats work. Hazing is a slang term for it.

[–]hennaojisan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think usually way before president all the non-psychopaths have been filtered out. In college, I absolutely hated frat guys and still do when I meet that type. If your teeth aren't perfectly straight they notice it and you have to wear the right shirt, etc. Well, you know. I was born lower-middle class and fuck anyone who doesn't like it.

[–]breakfast 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not a pedophile defender but I understand in the primal era they had sex as soon as puberty hit for optimal child production. I would like to discuss the ramifications of societal changing of this and if it was true, and other information about how this was through time.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Despite being a chat troll, this is an interesting idea: The evolution of the age of consent.

But I'm going to go on another tangent.

As this is not a popular topic, it is also a very misunderstood topic - and believe it or not there are MANY types of pedophiles and several of them actually deserve to be defended.

The Many Types Of Pedophiles

To start with "pedophile" literally means "child" + "lover" - whether that's a parent, teacher, or person who collects figurines of kids doing cute things. It's a very inaccurate word. But we know what we're talking about. Sexualizing kids. Yet we must not go there quite yet.

According to Michael Jackson, who I don't trust, all of his interactions were innocent. There are actually people like that, who just like kids for being kids. But it's impossible to know who they are and when they cross the lines onto slippery slopes, so it's safe to say we need to protect our precious kids and not take any chances with them. Especially with ultra rich weirdo rock stars.

Along with the legit innocents there are people who find kids attractive. I find there are all sorts of attractive people. Some kids start cute and grow into an average person or start as ugly babies and grow up to be hotties. People change and have varying genetic luck through their lives. Some have a face that belongs in movies or photos and belong in central casting. I find some old people very attractive. Men and women. Just like kids can have charisma. NONE of this is even saying I want to get sexual with them in any way. It's just acknowledging that all people have charms, and some more than others at various points in their lives, and of course, beauty and appreciation is in the eye of the beholder.

Here is a famous example of photographer Sally Mann's daughter. This girl is very attractive. But this image is controversial because she's sexualized in some subtle and not subtle ways. I'll let you read the article. Because I find the girl attractive doesn't mean I want to have sex with her. She may grow into a horse face by the time she's 18, or maybe she'll be a man-eating heart-breaker. Or just a meek librarian. But in this image, she's not average, she's not a snot nosed ugly brat - she's attractive. At the instance the image was captured, whether by intention or not, whether that's the real essence of the girl or not, that image also crosses into sexuality with the pose, the heavy lids, the tussled hair, and the candy cigarette, sexualizing the child, not unlike beauty contests do. All legal but crossing over from innocence.

The rest I won't go into so much detail but there are clear distinctions to be made. As I'm just making this up I don't know if there are classification terms or not but it seems obvious to me. And some of these "stages" might be in a different order depending on specifics I won't dwell upon.

  • Next there would be folks who find kids sexually attractive. That's it. They don't act on it or express it. Still not a crime.

  • Talking about sex with a kid still isn't touching, and depending on the relationship, context, and content, can be educational or be very wrong. A lot of it is context and awareness. Kids in nudist communities and at Burning Man aren't programmed to view the naked human body as bad. And it isn't, especially when it's not doing anything wrong.

  • Innocent touching. Picking them up, petting their hair, tickling, etc. Whether attracted or not, this is another level. As an uncle I even avoid this, but sometimes you can't as kids don't know not to climb over you and making a thing of avoiding it would be even weirder.

  • Not-innocent groping over the clothes. Compulsion has crossed the line.

  • Going under or removing clothes of the child would be another stage.

  • Exposing genitals or removing clothes of the senior person.

  • Consensual activities.

  • Reluctant activities.

  • Forceful activities.

  • Harmful activities.

  • Harmful activities with intentional suffering inflicted, perhaps deriving Sadistic pleasure.

  • Murder.

  • Post murder activities.

While these are obviously distasteful. I would assume they need to be clearly distinguished and classified for clinical and criminal study. This isn't even addressing the power and dominance psychology, nor the trauma issues, not to mention the unaccountability shields wealth and large institutions may provide.

Further, the perpetrators of these actions are clearly the criminals. While according to our laws anyone in possession of digital files recording these events are also criminals though they may not have financially supported the perpetrators, nor participated in harming anyone. Having the media is paramount to thought crime.

Why are these distinctions important and this media-possession law potentially harmful?

  1. The media is illegal therefore the public can't find clues to the actual perpetrators.

  2. Just as the drug laws create a the underground drug market with inflated prices so too, an artificial market is created where the child abusers and traffickers can thrive in a subculture.

  3. Possession of the media may put non-violent people in jail, perhaps in violent peril. This is a good way to frame someone too, and whether guilty or innocent, they have not stolen nor harmed anyone nor supported the perpetrators and this "found media" is just a thought crime, not a crime against Natural Law (don't steal from or harm others).

  4. Perhaps arresting the file sharing perverts in numbers is just a straw man of sorts for the public to make us believe they are arresting the actual villains, when really they are just arresting twisted pirate patseys while the true perpetrators continue.

That's just off the top of my head and there are likely other reasons but this is unpleasant stuff and I've already dwelt here too long.

Do I want child porn legalized? Hell no. Decriminalized? Maybe. Would it then become all pervasive like porn? Or would we catch more bad guys with this new authentic transparency? Would they be less cautious and leave more digital breadcrumbs? I don't expect authorities in government, academia, etc to be honest enough to do legit studies so I'm not holding my breath for honest answers and have no interest in fighting for or against this, other than pointing out the obvious inherent and extant flaws.

If you're with me so far, you have courage through this distasteful thought exploration where few dare to tread, but I'm going to point out that none of this is the worst.

As warped as most of those categories listed above are, and whether the kids are permanently traumatized or get over it - it's all small time. Yes it's bad, and no matter how much it's still a small "industry" and pales in comparison to large scale warfare.

War Is Worse

I never seek out gore. Yet this week I came across completely legal video of children after an attack mid street making their way over the rubble in various states, as I recall. I don't recall well because all I really remember is one of the kids had two short meaty bloody stumps where his arms should have been, crying and lurching towards camera, and that image is burned in my mind. I have no idea if he made it to a hospital or even survived.

I refused to watch John McCain's ISIS friends behead that 11 year old boy.

In part because before that I'd seen footage of a boy being treated with his sister in a hospital room. They had encountered a land mine. His eyes were wide and aware but below them wasn't much of his face left and his tongue was hanging down to his chest as it hadn't disappeared with his entire jaw. I don't know how he could have survived much less swallowed or been fed.

Sure these are gory examples. Many victims near explosions die from the shock compression without being ripped apart. Way more people are killed around an explosion than directly under it. In WWII more soldiers died during the beach attacks from having their lungs shocked rather than torn apart, fatally drowning in their own blood over the course of days. The same must be true for those near the US targets.

Priests and billionaires who rape hundreds of kids are evil. Most of those kids can still be moderately successful despite this.

Many orders of magnitude greater are the US military and CIA operations that have killed millions upon millions of kids, parents, families - and whether orphaned, disfigured, or suffering fast or slow deaths, most are certainly hindered from success and fulfillment. Our governments steal all they have and all they're gonna have.

And yet the masses go along with it. So if it takes exposing the Pedophocracy and their "lesser evils" as their moral Achilles heel, then I'm all for exploiting that weakness and taking down the power monsters that be.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and it makes you wonder why Lolita was such a popular book. I think a lot of people can relate. Lost youth, you miss it. I see what Michael Jackson went thru, can't condone it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unrelated but I keep hearing how Roger Stone is violating his gag order. IMO if someone has to be "gagged" they must be telling painful truths. Otherwise who cares what they say.