Thread: Pedophilia and it's implications.

I've been wondering about this for a few days now, and I wonder what you guys think about this.

As I said way back, one of my hobbies is watching Japanese cartoons (anime), and I frequent some boards where this stuff is discussed.

I came across an article that caused quite a ruckus in one of the boards: a man was arrested for being in possession of depictions of child pornography, of the anime kind. His wife found these pictures on his laptop and reported him to the police.

It is quite obvious that this person is a pedophile, but since when is it a crime to humanity to be in possession of drawings that resemble children engaged in sexual intercourse? Did he deserve being arrested for that? No children were harmed, and no crime was committed, it's just a mildly disgusting fetish. I think it would have been better to put him in therapy or something.

Here's the article in question: 'Anime Porn' Leads to Arrest in Slidell, Louisiana (Updated) - News - Anime News Network

Well actually considering the fact that if a person does view anime pornography, its impossible not be declared a pedophile. Since almost all anime (yes, there are others but lots are based in high school) are practically based in high school. In this case, I think therapy would be better.

Actually, elite, the article indicates that he was arrested for actual photographs of minors, even if it was the anime images which led his wife to call the police and gave them probable cause for a search warrant. It is not a federal crime here in the United States to be in possession of drawings, paintings and etc of child pornography, unless they are so realistic as to be indistinguishable from a photograph or are drawn from actual photographs. 18 U.S.C. 2252(a), -2256(. So he wasn't arrested for the drawings, which as you suspect is the correct legal result.

On the other hand, I personally would characterize sexual attraction to prepubescent minors as much more serious than a "mildly disgusting fetish". It is pathological and dangerous. It is true that if one satisfies it entirely by looking at drawings, then no one is actually harmed by this behavior beyond the person engaging in it. But while I have no problem with ordinary pornography and its normal use by normal people, I do think unhealthy, dangerous appetites and obsessions such as this kind, or rape or murder fantasies, are better suppressed entirely than fed even a bit.

alanmt - You are quoting federal law, and the man was charged under Louisiana state law. In this case probably a big difference. You can research the Louisiana codes here.

Originally Posted by alanmt

Actually, elite, the article indicates that he was arrested for actual photographs of minors, even if it was the anime images which led his wife to call the police and gave them probable cause for a search warrant. It is not a federal crime here in the United States to be in possession of drawings, paintings and etc of child pornography, unless they are so realistic as to be indistinguishable from a photograph or are drawn from actual photographs. 18 U.S.C. 2252(a), -2256(. So he wasn't arrested for the drawings, which as you suspect is the correct legal result.

On the other hand, I personally would characterize sexual attraction to prepubescent minors as much more serious than a "mildly disgusting fetish". It is pathological and dangerous. It is true that if one satisfies it entirely by looking at drawings, then no one is actually harmed by this behavior beyond the person engaging in it. But while I have no problem with ordinary pornography and its normal use by normal people, I do think unhealthy, dangerous appetites and obsessions such as this kind, or rape or murder fantasies, are better suppressed entirely than fed even a bit.

Ah, sorry, I got it wrong. I didn't read the source article and missed that part (the article I posted here was very vague about it, possibly intentionally?). Well, now that's clear, no wonder he got arrested. I agree with you, pedophilia is more than a mildly disgusting fetish, but I had made the statement assuming he was in possession of depictions and nothing else, and thus was nothing more than say sado-masochistic porn for example. In such cases, do you think such people should also be arrested, or should the material in question be forbidden like they did in japan a short while ago? Maybe this stuff acts as a deterrent for those who just can't help it. I mean, at least homosexuals can legally satisfy their disorder. As far as I know therapy doesn't have guarantee of working, and I think this is worth considering. Well, I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes... I find the thought of an adult person groping or children awfully scary for some reason.

By the way, in the US, can a 18 year old male be arrested for having sexual intercourse with a 13 year old? I think this is a fairly common thing. I had a classmate back in middle-school who was 13 and had an 19 year old boyfriend, and while I can't possibly tell if they did it or not, let's assume they did. Would that count as pedophilia?

Originally Posted by elite

Ah, sorry, I got it wrong. I didn't read the source article and missed that part (the article I posted here was very vague about it, possibly intentionally?). Well, now that's clear, no wonder he got arrested. I agree with you, pedophilia is more than a mildly disgusting fetish, but I had made the statement assuming he was in possession of depictions and nothing else, and thus was nothing more than say sado-masochistic porn for example. In such cases, do you think such people should also be arrested, or should the material in question be forbidden like they did in japan a short while ago? Maybe this stuff acts as a deterrent for those who just can't help it. I mean, at least homosexuals can legally satisfy their disorder. As far as I know therapy doesn't have guarantee of working, and I think this is worth considering. Well, I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes... I find the thought of an adult person groping or children awfully scary for some reason.

By the way, in the US, can a 18 year old male be arrested for having sexual intercourse with a 13 year old? I think this is a fairly common thing. I had a classmate back in middle-school who was 13 and had an 19 year old boyfriend, and while I can't possibly tell if they did it or not, let's assume they did. Would that count as pedophilia?

Yes, and the 18 year old would have to register as a sex offender.

It would count as statutory rape, or unlawful carnal knowledge. In most states 25 to 99, the first 25 to be served day-for-day, meaning no parole.

You can't arrest a person for being a pedophile any more than you can arrest a person for being a thief. If an adult has a sexual relationship with a child, he can be arrested for the offence, not because he is by nature a pedophile. If a person steals something, he can be arrested for the offence, not because he is by nature a thief. In the case cited, police charged the man with specific offences. Those offences indicate pedophilia, but it was for the offences he was arrested.

There have been some famous pedophiles in history who were never in legal trouble because they never broke the law, or at least were never discovered to have broken the law. It was not until the middle of the 19th century that the kinds of laws we have today regarding trans-generational sexual behaviour began to be enacted.

Who said you could be arrested just for being a pedophile?

I believe that in some ways, pedophilia is partly the result of the sexualization of children in the media & in general society. As such, talking about the actual acts isn't getting to the heart of the problem.
You have children at 5 & 6 encouraged to dress & act like Britany Spears (or whoever is fashionable). You have people who may have some wiring faults in their heads, or various other imperfections. It's asking for some bad results.

Children dressing & acting like slutty adults, plus fantasy anime of children in a sexual context will leave a less than desirable impression on mentally vulnerable people. You simply can't sexualise children in the mainstream media, and not expect bad results. The media & the general community (including many parents) are partly to blame.

No it's not lessening the offense; but it's not a case or normal, then one step to pedophile. I believe that removing the steps between the two would make a positive difference.

Until 50 years ago, it was not uncommon for men to marry girls, some as young as 12. This had gone on for thousands of years. In the US we've completely shut this down, but it still goes on in other countries (i.e. Mexico). The feminist argument goes that every female should have a chance to become whatever they want, except if that female wants to be a housewife. Guess what ? Some females want to be housewives.

The OP posted a story about visual depictions of under 18 females. In the US this kind of thing hasn't just been shut down, laws have been introduced to shut down everything in proximity to it, such as a porn star who looks underage pretending to be underage. Hollywood has only dared these laws once, in 1998 when 16 year old Thora Birch briefly went topless in American Beauty. About the same time, 15 year old Dominique Swaim played Lolita but she didn't bare any skin (a body double did). In recent days, a story was posted that the 13 year old who blew people away in True Grit would be playing Juliet in Romeo and Juliet. The script calls for a nude and sex scene (We'll see).

In other parts of the world, underage nudity is often seen in movies. In the US we try to pretend that underage girls never ever have a sexual thought, whereas other parts of the world reflect reality in art.

As alanmt pointed out, the US Supreme Court has ruled, under federal law, that computer generated images don't fall in the area of child porn, although state courts can circumvent this in certain ways. An argument can be made that the anime being the probable cause of a search can be fruit of the poisoned tree, and therefore invalid, but Louisiana falls under the 9th circuit court of appeals, meaning this guy is screwed because the US Supreme Court presently prefers to leave things to lower and state courts. No one will come to his rescue, not even the ACLU.

Joe - The idea was implicit in some of the early posts in the thread.

Elite, for example, wrote, 'I had a classmate back in middle-school who was 13 and had an 19 year old boyfriend, and while I can't possibly tell if they did it or not, let's assume they did. Would that count as pedophilia?'

The direct answer to that is, no, the pedophilia is in the mind of the 19-year-old, and is indicated by his attraction to a 13-year-old. If the desire for sexual contact were to be consumated, that would constitute unlawful carnal knowledge, which in the U-S is more commonly called statutory rape.

Rustgold - There is no more, possibly less, pedophilia today in western society than there was in the past. It is more obvious today than it has been in recent years, but if you go back a couple of hundred years you'll find a different attitude.

Originally Posted by garza

alanmt - You are quoting federal law, and the man was charged under Louisiana state law. In this case probably a big difference. You can research the Louisiana codes here.

Since elite is not American, I thought I would simplify the matter by a reference to federal law, rather than one state's law.

Originally Posted by elite

I mean, at least homosexuals can legally satisfy their disorder.

Ouch. And here I have tried to be helpful to you.

Originally Posted by garza

Elite, for example, wrote, 'I had a classmate back in middle-school who was 13 and had an 19 year old boyfriend, and while I can't possibly tell if they did it or not, let's assume they did. Would that count as pedophilia?'

Oh – you’re right -- he did say that. But had I seen it, I would have known what he meant and not bothered writing paragraph to correct him. Mainly because you’re here to do it for me.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Until 50 years ago, it was not uncommon for men to marry girls, some as young as 12. This had gone on for thousands of years. In the US we've completely shut this down, but it still goes on in other countries (i.e. Mexico). The feminist argument goes that every female should have a chance to become whatever they want, except if that female wants to be a housewife. Guess what ? Some females want to be housewives.

So we don't allow 12-year olds to marry because we don't want them to be housewives? Ha ha.

We allowed all kinds of things 50 years ago that were wrong. Jim Crow laws. Not paying women equally for equal work. Not allowing interracial marriage. Ostracizing or even arresting homosexuals. The thing is, we know better know. And we know that vast majority of 12 year olds aren't capable of making the decision to marry or have sex. And I seriously doubt that back in the day many did of their own free will -- so that means they were forced into it, or at best, they did it because is was expected of them. Not because they wanted to be married or be housewives.

Of course what feminists want or say is pretty irrelevant these days. Many, many women choose to be stay-at-homes moms or housewives -- if they can afford it. And virtually no one gives it a second thought or criticizes them for it. Most women see it as something admirable -- even if it's not for them. That's the reality today. It's a non-issue.