Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

[Ekit]

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?

Maybe in the United States, but in Sweden the age of consent is 15 (or 14 in some cities). Which really only means that if anyone under the age of 15 is raped by someone older than 15 it's considered child rape.

 

[Ekit]

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.

Maybe in the United States, but in Sweden the age of consent is 15 (or 14 in some cities). Which really only means that if anyone under the age of 15 is raped by someone older than 15 it's considered child rape.

 

[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.

Maybe in the United States, but in Sweden the age of consent is 15 (or 14 in some cities). Which really only means that if anyone under the age of 15 is raped by someone older than 15 it's considered child rape.

Ah, of course it depends on the legal age of consent, but to my knowledge there isn't anywhere where the legal definition of paedophilia doesn't exceed the literal definition.

 

[General Vagueness]

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

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

Before I get the police on me by doing some research on this stuff, are you a psychologist whose studied this kind of thing, or just a clever informed person?

EDIT: No worries, found out, it turns out that studies show that exposureto pornography can icnrease rates of sexual assault, also

In a paper written in 1965[6] called, Sexual Deviation as Conditioned Behavior: A Hypothesis, R.J. McGuire found that the viewing of pornography can serve as a source of a paraphilic "vivid sexual fantasy" which, when contemplated during masturbation, may condition men into perversion

In a prison interview conducted by Gail Dines, rape of a prepubescent child followed "habitual" consumption of child porn "within six months," although the men were previously "horrified at the idea".[8]

However, a metaanalysis by Hald, et al (2010)[11] suggests that there is a link between consumption of violent pornography and rape-supportive attitudes in certain populations of men, particularly when moderating variables are taken into consideration.

Silbert, M. and Pines, A., in "Pornography and Sexual Abuse of Women," published their study involving prostitutes in the international journal Sex Roles, "The comments followed the same pattern: the assailant referred to pornographic materials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence."[18]

. According to the study, child molesters indicated "significantly more" exposure to pornography than rapists in adulthood.

According to the study "Pornography Use as a Risk Marker for an Aggressive Pattern of Behavior Among Sexually Reactive Children and Adolescents", sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), also referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, "may be more vulnerable and likely to experience damaging effects from pornography use." According to the study, the SRCAs who used pornography were "more likely" to display aggressive behaviors than their nonusing counterparts

So yes although it's not conclusive there is a huge body of evidence that perusual of pornography leads to increases and rape and child molesting.

to make this short, correlation isn't the same as causation

 

[Eri]

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Somebody likes to look at those perverse drawings.

You should probably keep that smart tongue of yours to yourself instead of flaming me and adding nothing to the thread.

 

[BrotherRool]

to make this short, correlation isn't the same as causation

Is that in reference to me or supportive of me? If it's in reference, the studies I was taking that from tended to be more controlled studies, which have a slightly better relationship between correlation and causation (I think it's called stronger internal causation or something like that?) The studies we've found that hold the opposite view, tend to be more statistical studies where the comment is more relevant.

To give an example, if I were trying to work if turning on the tap caused the water to flow from it, I could either take a big chart of all the times water has flown from the tap and and all the times people have turned it. If there was correlation, then that doesn't necessarily imply causation.

However if I create a controlled experiment where I choose to turn the tap 100 times and see what happens, a correlation there has a stronger implication of causation. It's because the independent variable has been consciously changed, so is less connected to other things. Naturally it's still not a complete implication of causation but it removes lots of incidents where you would have coincidental correlation, because often that stems from a third variable, that both observed variables are related to.

In any case, I have no ground for belief in this, I was initially challenging the apparently unsubstantiated idea that this would possibly relieve people with that sexual orientation and by implication reduce the number of child molesters. So whilst these studies may well not be valid, we would certainly need to see studies in the other direction before falling in line with that and in the meantime we have more evidence pointing the one way than the other

In this case there seems to be a lack of consensus, it's a controversial topic with studies pointing in both directions and at the moment I feel I cannot conclude even way unless someone finds something substantial to decide the matter

 

[LazyAza]

Illustrated pornography depicting child-like characters will never go away and can never be controlled unless everyone wants SOPA level filtering 24/7 across the entire internet. So long as people exist it will exist the same as any other form of creative expression.

I am of the opinion that fantasy and reality are not automatically linked for most people (obviously this is a case by case basis) and so believe their is no real consequence for any interests a person may have so long as real harm coming towards real people is not a part of said interest.

If someone gets off to sexual imagery of any variety whether or not this causes their behavior in the real world to be modified comes down to the individual, their morals, their beliefs and their sense of reason as well as right and wrong.

I love violence and action in my media but I am an incredibly friendly calm person in the real world who would never think of harming another. In fact incredibly realistic acts of violence such as that seen in news reports still gets a reaction from me I would classify as normal for any person. To say porn = thought = action is no different than saying video game = thought = action. Games don't make people killers and porn doesn't make people sex offenders.

 

[Eri]

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Somebody likes to look at those perverse drawings.

You should probably keep that smart tongue of yours to yourself instead of flaming me and adding nothing to the thread.

You are the one who took that hugely objectionable position

Uh no, In your haste to argue you completely ignored the fact that I took no position at all. In fact, the only thing I stated was that imaginary kids aren't real, which they aren't.

 

[Pebblig]

Good, I'm glad it turned out this way. It seemed like a pretty weak argument to be honest.

 

[Enthuril]

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Somebody likes to look at those perverse drawings.

You should probably keep that smart tongue of yours to yourself instead of flaming me and adding nothing to the thread.

You are the one who took that hugely objectionable position

Uh no, In your haste to argue you completely ignored the fact that I took no position at all. In fact, the only thing I stated was that imaginary kids aren't real, which they aren't.

You clearly took the pro-stance on this issue. If you simply posted the picture I could see it as just being humorous but instead you said "You should probably tell the United States that next." That is a clear indication of not only your support of this material but the wish for the legality to spread to other places.

You can try to backpedal out of this all you want but your stance was already made clear.
I'm not sure what you get out of looking at that sort of filth and really I don't want to know. But do not expect others to support it or not look at you funny knowing you do.

Making personal attacks against someone is the first sign of insecurity, as is labelling actions supporting freedoms as supporting something negative. It would be like saying that in allowing people to buy guns, America is enabling murderers. If you read the majority of this thread, you'll see that almost all arguments supporting it are supporting it at least partly because it allows for freedom of artistic expression. Like it or not, all drawings constitute artwork regardless of the subject matter. Because of this, by making such drawings illegal you are enabling the censorship of artwork, which should NEVER happen.

 

[Eri]

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Somebody likes to look at those perverse drawings.

You should probably keep that smart tongue of yours to yourself instead of flaming me and adding nothing to the thread.

You are the one who took that hugely objectionable position

Uh no, In your haste to argue you completely ignored the fact that I took no position at all. In fact, the only thing I stated was that imaginary kids aren't real, which they aren't.

You clearly took the pro-stance on this issue. If you simply posted the picture I could see it as just being humorous but instead you said "You should probably tell the United States that next." That is a clear indication of not only your support of this material but the wish for the legality to spread to other places.

You can try to backpedal out of this all you want but your stance was already made clear.
I'm not sure what you get out of looking at that sort of filth and really I don't want to know. But do not expect others to support it or not look at you funny knowing you do.

Wrong again. I posted text because of this thing called a "low content" post. Also because the US said they were real. Why would I try to backpedal? I NEVER HAD AN ARGUMENT TO BEGIN WITH. You are literally the one starting fights for no reason.

In fact, I'd dare say since you're so against it, maybe you're in the closet and can't admit to liking it. Kinda like how many homophobes are in the closet.

 

[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.

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.

I agree with that too. Of course, the well being of a sex offender matter little to society (last sentence added only to avoid a low content warning, escapist please reconsider that ridiculous policy).

 

[Dresos]

Well that's good, I mean what if it had turned out that imaginary children WAS real!?! We would all have been doomed! Hear me DOOOOMED!

No but seriously, I'm still really disappointed that this even had to go to the supreme court.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

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

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

Before I get the police on me by doing some research on this stuff, are you a psychologist whose studied this kind of thing, or just a clever informed person?

EDIT: No worries, found out, it turns out that studies show that exposureto pornography can icnrease rates of sexual assault, also

In a paper written in 1965[6] called, Sexual Deviation as Conditioned Behavior: A Hypothesis, R.J. McGuire found that the viewing of pornography can serve as a source of a paraphilic "vivid sexual fantasy" which, when contemplated during masturbation, may condition men into perversion

In a prison interview conducted by Gail Dines, rape of a prepubescent child followed "habitual" consumption of child porn "within six months," although the men were previously "horrified at the idea".[8]

However, a metaanalysis by Hald, et al (2010)[11] suggests that there is a link between consumption of violent pornography and rape-supportive attitudes in certain populations of men, particularly when moderating variables are taken into consideration.

Silbert, M. and Pines, A., in "Pornography and Sexual Abuse of Women," published their study involving prostitutes in the international journal Sex Roles, "The comments followed the same pattern: the assailant referred to pornographic materials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence."[18]

. According to the study, child molesters indicated "significantly more" exposure to pornography than rapists in adulthood.

According to the study "Pornography Use as a Risk Marker for an Aggressive Pattern of Behavior Among Sexually Reactive Children and Adolescents", sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), also referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, "may be more vulnerable and likely to experience damaging effects from pornography use." According to the study, the SRCAs who used pornography were "more likely" to display aggressive behaviors than their nonusing counterparts

So yes although it's not conclusive there is a huge body of evidence that perusual of pornography leads to increases and rape and child molesting.

snip

I wanted to bring you in again because I found research that suggests that exposure to child pornography actually does lead to an increase in child molesting. The research is not fully conclusive but I haven't found any studies that suggest it would decrease sexual urges

As a scientist you must be aware of two major things, level of confidence and Bias. If a test does not pass a certain bar (95% confidence) it is not considered significant. This idea runs through science, in one form or another. When they say inconclusive results, they litterally mean that that confidence limit was not reached. In more physical sciences they would have to stop speaking at that point, results not significant end. However, as it is about behaviour they will still highlight a few things. They degree to which trends are looked at and depth of analysis are afected by the second thing, Bias. You see, once they decide to look at a result that did not pass the significance test, both the positive possiblity and negative possiblity both have the same same strength, but the one that fits their hypothesis will be looked at (n this case the negative). Hence Bias.
Further, the topic of masturbation and pornography have always caused a massive rift in societies all over the wrold. It is reasonable to think that the people performing these investigations would find themselves wittingly or unwittingly subject to the same rifting.

To sum up, if it is inconclusive then it is not a significant result. As a result, none of the trends observed can be considered more likely than their opposite possiblity. Trying to suggest any one possiblity is more likely would require that possiblity to produce a significant result. Hence discussing such is a sign of intentional or unintentional bias in the investigation.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Somebody likes to look at those perverse drawings.

You should probably keep that smart tongue of yours to yourself instead of flaming me and adding nothing to the thread.

You are the one who took that hugely objectionable position

Uh no, In your haste to argue you completely ignored the fact that I took no position at all. In fact, the only thing I stated was that imaginary kids aren't real, which they aren't.

You clearly took the pro-stance on this issue. If you simply posted the picture I could see it as just being humorous but instead you said "You should probably tell the United States that next." That is a clear indication of not only your support of this material but the wish for the legality to spread to other places.

You can try to backpedal out of this all you want but your stance was already made clear.
I'm not sure what you get out of looking at that sort of filth and really I don't want to know. But do not expect others to support it or not look at you funny knowing you do.

I support gay marriage. By your logic, this must mean I'm gay, no?

I also support female equality. This must mean that I'm also a woman, yes?

So I'm apparently a lesbian pedophile. Who knew? Certainly not me.

Excuse my french but what the f*ck did I just read?
Someone makes a quip about imaginary children not being real, with a little zinger towards US legislations, which causes several others to accuse him of being a perverted pedophile, which in turn makes Arontala a lesbian pedophile?

On topic:

I believe, that, since pedophilia probably isn't a choice, it's better for pedos to look at drawings of little children etc, disgusting as they may be, instead of having to search for actual pictures of naked children. That way, they can get off without real children having to be harmed in the process, and that, to me, seems like a good thing.
And if we need lolica? lolicon? lolipops?, whatever, in order to ensure that less children are traumatized and that the demand for child porn is lowered, then so be it.
Let them have their drawings, if it means that they don't need real child-porn.

Disclaimer:
I am not a pedophile and these depictions of underage girls performing sexual acts / having sexual acts performed on them do not interest me enough to actually overcome my disgust with the subject and look at them in order to be able to judge their artistic value, however I agree with the notion that drawn children are not real.
Should a court rule otherwise, then I shall draw myself a source of child-support money.

 

[zehydra]

Imaginary kids are not real?


You should probably tell the United States that next.

? It's legal here...

 

[Eri]

Imaginary kids are not real?


You should probably tell the United States that next.

? It's legal here...

Nope.

Christopher Handley, the Iowa man on trial for possessing manga "drawings of children being sexually abused," was sentenced on Thursday to six months in prison. Following this sentence, Handley must serve three years of supervised release and five years of probation. Both of these terms will start upon his release from prison and will run concurrently. Handley also agreed to forfeit all seized materials, including his computer. During Handley's supervised release and probation, Handley must also "participate in a treatment program, to include psychological testing and a polygraph examination, as directed by the U. S. Probation Officer."

 

[GasparNolasco]

Wow, that argument was pretty stupid! You don't need real people as models to draw naked characters, any artist worth it's salt has enough anatomy knowledge to draw any kind of porn.
Following that logic, they might charge someone with assault for possessing drawings of people fighting!

And btw, I saw the allegedly pornographic pic that guy had an it was just an innocent mock of the 48 poses of the kama-sutra drawn in chibi manga style (just search "chibi kamasutra"). They are thumbnail sized each and, in my judgement, made for comic purposes, not porn.

 

[Bat Vader]

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.

Are first offenders placed on there or are people placed on the list for multiple offenses?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

This took way too long to clear up. This shouldn't even be a question that needs to be asked. It's simple logic that takes a second to work through.