Quote:
Originally Posted by starscream
Oh. Then no on agreements (yes on disagreements?). I feel like if the pedophiles are made to feel as if their impulses aren't so isolated to their own minds, that lots of people have them, they will become more likely to act on them rather than just being ashamed of themselves. I guess this assumes that the whole idea is wrong to them to begin with though. Which shouldn't be assumed, I suppose, but seems to be the case.
|
I don't know if I agree with your logic, but I think we can agree that raping children is wrong. (Unless it's statutory raping, and the child is 17 and you are 18. Then it's less black and white. Unless one is black and the other is white, and then it's wrong again! #fauxracismissotrendy?, whee!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stulagu
The difference, though, is he is talking about child porn like it is a porn movie. Child porn can be as simple as pictures of little kids in their underwear.
|
Is it illegal to have a picture of a child in their underwear? (Serious question. Say it's a boy, and genitals are not pictured. Or say the kid is wearing shorts. I understand how a pedophile having such a picture is icky, and that their impure thoughts are objectionable, but legally? Can someone actually get in trouble for having a picture of a child in a bathing suit? If so, then a lot of parents are in a lot of trouble.)
PS That last part is not a joke. I have a friend (a comedian named James Patterson who is not the author of the same name) who has a joke about tricking the police into thinking he was a pedophile, but at the last minute it turns out the naked kid pictures he has are of himself.
HOWEVER, the actual case is that even naked pictures of YOURSELF as a kid in your possession can be grounds for prosecution. (Which is why teens sexting is problematic potentially for them, legally.)