Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

[Enthuril]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

It is, however the general public rarely makes a distinction. Which is sad within itself, because one is something that could actually be considered quite natural and part of our instincts and the other isn't.

 

[shrekfan246]

Don't like that kind of stuff, still glad the guy got off.

Hah!

What you did there.

I see it.

OT: Well, that sounds like a very illogical conclusion. Who would think that a drawing of something isn't real?

Mr. Sun agrees with me. He's quite clearly really the sun.

 

[Scorpid]

Yay personal freedoms win for today! Now let's all go take a bath...

 

[mtarzaim]

Hmm, several posts of people affirming that they agree with the ruling. Pffft, that's boring. I offer up a bounty of 57 internets to whomever can build a reasonably sane argument against the ruling.

Let me give it a shot:

1) This ruling may set precedence that anything animated, generated by computers or drawn is not child porn. However, as technology advances the ability to differentiate between CG, or highly realistic drawings (done via computers) may blur the line between real life child pornography and virtual to indistinguishable levels making it hard to rely on the "needs a victim" as a means of differentiating for law enforcement.

2) Virtual reality (I.E. Think virtual reality on the level of the holo decks of star treck) will also come into effect one day at which not only can it be realistic level, but truly can be assuredly virtual and thus the difference between real life child pornography and that of the digital world will be only in the lack of a real victim at which point the ability to know what you're seeing might even come into question.

Ok that's the best I can manage while staying sane..

*Edited for formatting

Good.

Now I wish your take on onna-hole stuff and augmented reality maid pron.
>

 

[l3o2828]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

It is a well known psychological fact that realeasing ones urges is helpful to the psyche of the individual.
I could expand this thing, but frankly i see no reason too.

 

[Epona]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

 

[Enthuril]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

 

[Epona]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

 

[BrotherRool]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

It is a well known psychological fact that realeasing ones urges is helpful to the psyche of the individual.
I could expand this thing, but frankly i see no reason too.

Please do expand it, if you check over the last couple of pages we've been struggling to find some sort of scientific consensus on it. There have been a lot of studies that suggest exposure to pornography can increase likliehood of sexual assault or child molesting in certain types of people and 'encourage perversion' but equally there have been statistical studies on larger societies suggesting that more societal exposure to explicit materials reduces this. We've been unable to determine which is more accurate than the other and if you have a good source we'd love to see it

 

[keinechance]

Reality wins?

Is this a dream?

 

[Skitty_McFluffernut]

The U.S. knows. Its legal to have pictures of simulated child porn, such as Manga. Its a violation of your first amendment rights to bar possession of material that doesn't actually depict real children. I don't remember the case off hand but its been legal awhile.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

In both trials, the prosecution argued that the images Lundström possessed could be used to entice children into performing sexual acts, and that real children could have been used as models for the drawings. I'm going to assume that last argument sounded marginally less insane in the original Swedish.

That's the most asinine thing ever. Like saying that I need to go to jail because I have alcohol, because I could be providing it to minors; or anyone with a gun, because they could be using those guns to hold-up convenience stores.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Now if the US could follow suit............

 

[Enthuril]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

Yeah, but that in itself can be countered when you make the point of lower life expectancies. Because, you know, if people die earlier they're doing to need to be sexually active earlier.

 

[Epona]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

Yeah, but that in itself can be countered when you make the point of lower life expectancies. Because, you know, if people die earlier they're doing to need to be sexually active earlier.

I understand the reasons behind why it was the norm back then. My point is that when people talk of pedophilia as some sort of mental sickness, they are wrong. It is socially unacceptable but that changes from time to time and culture to culture.

In other words, I am fine with pedophilia being a crime. I am not fine with how people overreact to it. Wanting cruel and unusual punishment for people is an example of overreaction.

People need to see it for what it is, a crime that has not always been a crime.

 

[Enthuril]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

Yeah, but that in itself can be countered when you make the point of lower life expectancies. Because, you know, if people die earlier they're doing to need to be sexually active earlier.

I understand the reasons behind why it was the norm back then. My point is that when people talk of pedophilia as some sort of mental sickness, they are wrong. It is socially unacceptable but that changes from time to time and culture to culture.

In other words, I am fine with pedophilia being a crime. I am not fine with how people overreact to it. Wanting cruel and unusual punishment for people is an example of overreaction.

People need to see it for what it is, a crime that has not always been a crime.

It's more like... People need to realise that paedophiles aren't what they are out of choice, but are instead born and develop that way. People who actually go out of their way to have sex and such with children are deserving of such harsh punishments, but I feel it depends on the severity of it. For example, if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction and unless the person was not consenting they are less in the wrong than someone who has had sex with a prepubescent child.

 

[Epona]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

Yeah, but that in itself can be countered when you make the point of lower life expectancies. Because, you know, if people die earlier they're doing to need to be sexually active earlier.

I understand the reasons behind why it was the norm back then. My point is that when people talk of pedophilia as some sort of mental sickness, they are wrong. It is socially unacceptable but that changes from time to time and culture to culture.

In other words, I am fine with pedophilia being a crime. I am not fine with how people overreact to it. Wanting cruel and unusual punishment for people is an example of overreaction.

People need to see it for what it is, a crime that has not always been a crime.

It's more like... People need to realise that paedophiles aren't what they are out of choice, but are instead born and develop that way. People who actually go out of their way to have sex and such with children are deserving of such harsh punishments, but I feel it depends on the severity of it. For example, if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction and unless the person was not consenting they are less in the wrong than someone who has had sex with a prepubescent child.

I can agree with most of what you say but why does a person who has sex with children deserve to be castrated, beat by an angry crowd, raped and beaten in prison or any other cruel and unusual punishments that emotionally charged people can come up with?

People who call for cruel and unusual punishments, well it says more about them than the criminal.

 

[Enthuril]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

Yeah, but that in itself can be countered when you make the point of lower life expectancies. Because, you know, if people die earlier they're doing to need to be sexually active earlier.

I understand the reasons behind why it was the norm back then. My point is that when people talk of pedophilia as some sort of mental sickness, they are wrong. It is socially unacceptable but that changes from time to time and culture to culture.

In other words, I am fine with pedophilia being a crime. I am not fine with how people overreact to it. Wanting cruel and unusual punishment for people is an example of overreaction.

People need to see it for what it is, a crime that has not always been a crime.

It's more like... People need to realise that paedophiles aren't what they are out of choice, but are instead born and develop that way. People who actually go out of their way to have sex and such with children are deserving of such harsh punishments, but I feel it depends on the severity of it. For example, if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction and unless the person was not consenting they are less in the wrong than someone who has had sex with a prepubescent child.

I can agree with most of what you say but why does a person who has sex with children deserve to be castrated, beat by an angry crowd, raped and beaten in prison or any other cruel and unusual punishments that emotionally charged people can come up with?

People who call for cruel and unusual punishments, well it says more about them than the criminal.

I think castration is hardly a bad punishment as it'd completely kill their sex drive and render them unable to carry out the offence, however that's the kind of thing that should only be done in extreme cases if at all because it's the right of every person to be able to breed and have children. Anything else is completely unreasonable though, they should be treated as people who have committed any other crime.

 

[Epona]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

Yeah, but that in itself can be countered when you make the point of lower life expectancies. Because, you know, if people die earlier they're doing to need to be sexually active earlier.

I understand the reasons behind why it was the norm back then. My point is that when people talk of pedophilia as some sort of mental sickness, they are wrong. It is socially unacceptable but that changes from time to time and culture to culture.

In other words, I am fine with pedophilia being a crime. I am not fine with how people overreact to it. Wanting cruel and unusual punishment for people is an example of overreaction.

People need to see it for what it is, a crime that has not always been a crime.

It's more like... People need to realise that paedophiles aren't what they are out of choice, but are instead born and develop that way. People who actually go out of their way to have sex and such with children are deserving of such harsh punishments, but I feel it depends on the severity of it. For example, if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction and unless the person was not consenting they are less in the wrong than someone who has had sex with a prepubescent child.

I can agree with most of what you say but why does a person who has sex with children deserve to be castrated, beat by an angry crowd, raped and beaten in prison or any other cruel and unusual punishments that emotionally charged people can come up with?

People who call for cruel and unusual punishments, well it says more about them than the criminal.

I think castration is hardly a bad punishment as it'd completely kill their sex drive and render them unable to carry out the offence, however that's the kind of thing that should only be done in extreme cases if at all because it's the right of every person to be able to breed and have children. Anything else is completely unreasonable though, they should be treated as people who have committed any other crime.

Well, I disagree, even in extreme cases because then someone (or a bunch of internet someones) would be suggestion we cut off hands for stealing in extreme cases like car theft.

I also think I should I point out how wrong I think the sex offender registry is. The idea that a sexual criminal should be punished for the rest of their life is ridiculous and yet it's the overreaction of paranoid people that created and maintains the registry.

 

[Enthuril]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

Isn't that technically ephebophilia(sp?)? I thought the hallmark of pedophilia was pre-pubescence...

I was under the impression that under 18 = pedophilia. Isn't that the way it is treated?

Legally, yes, but by definition no.

"Legally" is what counts. I think it would be less emotionally charged if people realized their own ancestors were likely guilty of what the law calls a pedophile today.

Yeah, but that in itself can be countered when you make the point of lower life expectancies. Because, you know, if people die earlier they're doing to need to be sexually active earlier.

I understand the reasons behind why it was the norm back then. My point is that when people talk of pedophilia as some sort of mental sickness, they are wrong. It is socially unacceptable but that changes from time to time and culture to culture.

In other words, I am fine with pedophilia being a crime. I am not fine with how people overreact to it. Wanting cruel and unusual punishment for people is an example of overreaction.

People need to see it for what it is, a crime that has not always been a crime.

It's more like... People need to realise that paedophiles aren't what they are out of choice, but are instead born and develop that way. People who actually go out of their way to have sex and such with children are deserving of such harsh punishments, but I feel it depends on the severity of it. For example, if someone were to have sex with someone who has already gone through puberty then it is a more natural sexual attraction and unless the person was not consenting they are less in the wrong than someone who has had sex with a prepubescent child.

I can agree with most of what you say but why does a person who has sex with children deserve to be castrated, beat by an angry crowd, raped and beaten in prison or any other cruel and unusual punishments that emotionally charged people can come up with?

People who call for cruel and unusual punishments, well it says more about them than the criminal.

I think castration is hardly a bad punishment as it'd completely kill their sex drive and render them unable to carry out the offence, however that's the kind of thing that should only be done in extreme cases if at all because it's the right of every person to be able to breed and have children. Anything else is completely unreasonable though, they should be treated as people who have committed any other crime.

Well, I disagree, even in extreme cases because then someone (or a bunch of internet someones) would be suggestion we cut off hands for stealing in extreme cases like car theft.

I also think I should I point out how wrong I think the sex offender registry is. The idea that a sexual criminal should be punished for the rest of their life is ridiculous and yet it's the overreaction of paranoid people that created and maintains the registry.

I find the registry wrong because of privacy issues more than anything. Even if they were taken off of it after a number of years, it directly places them in danger and removes them of a lot of privacy.