Forum - View topic

20 Years in Prison for Buying a Manga

Mohawk52 wrote:

It should also explain why the State of Iowa wants to send Mr. Handley to prison for 20 years.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said but...

It's a federal case.

Mohawk is making the claim that pedophilia is exclusive to humans, thus unnatural, meaning that doujins depicting it shouldn't exist. If pedophilia isn't a part of the natural sex drive of living animals then it might make a slightly more compelling case to state that lolicon/shotacon doujins will incite pedophiles into action, since its an unnatural urge of mankind.

So if one can prove that animals also display pedophilic tendencies, it might mean that the doujins just fill in an innate urge in humans. Its not dissimilar to the argument that homosexuality is natural and should be tolerated. This is different obviously in that pedophiles shouldn't be allowed to have their ideal mate, but if they have totally natural urges towards children, they should have a legal means to sate them, for their own benefit, and for the benefit of the rest of society. Since after all, if they cannot meet those urges, rape is more likely.

Trying to force a person who is born with the predisposition towards attraction to children to no longer have the feelings would work as well as doing the same thing to a gay man. The pedophile will naturally sneak behind others backs and attack children, just like a man who is forced to not be gay will be miserable and find a means to have his sex in secret, generally in less than safe ways.

Or thats my view on it, in regards to mohawks post.

What is the point of pornography if not to to stimulate the feeling of sexuallity and having sex? The point I'm trying to show is that the visual stimulation of sexual activity by child porn, be it virtual, or actual, is by nature perverse, and that is the reason society recoils away from it the way it does. Some here have attacked Colonel Wolf for the way he feels towards it, as if they can not understand why he, and others, including myself, would feel that way, and I wanted to explain why. It should also explain why the State of Iowa wants to send Mr. Handley to prison for 20 years. A sentence that even I, feeling what I do towards any type for child porn, find far too excessive, as the charge is only having it in his possession, and importing more of it. Sadly a convicted paedophile here in the UK, only gets 5 years, though I have read that the same would get more time there in the US. But still the question that Mr. Handely and those defending him will have to answer is, why do you have such an interest in depictions of children having sex, to have spent so much of your income on it? If I were a member of the jury, I would want to know why.

This is not surprising as the sexual maturity of the domestic moogie is 5 to 7 months. Animals communicate sexual maturity by giving off fermones that the males can smell, also by how the female act round the stimulated male. No stimulus, no action.

What is the point of pornography if not to to stimulate the feeling of sexuallity and having sex?

The point I'm trying to show is that the visual stimulation of sexual activity by child porn, be it virtual, or actual, is by nature perverse, and that is the reason society recoils away from it the way it does. Some here have attacked Colonel Wolf for the way he feels towards it, as if they can not understand why he, and others, including myself, would feel that way, and I wanted to explain why. It should also explain why the State of Iowa wants to send Mr. Handley to prison for 20 years. A sentence that even I, feeling what I do towards any type for child porn, find far too excessive, as the charge is only having it in his possession, and importing more of it. Sadly a convicted paedophile here in the UK, only gets 5 years, though I have read that the same would get more time there in the US.

But still the question that Mr. Handely and those defending him will have to answer is, why do you have such an interest in depictions of children having sex, to have spent so much of your income on it? If I were a member of the jury, I would want to know why.

Navak wrote:

Mohawk52 wrote: It should also explain why the State of Iowa wants to send Mr. Handley to prison for 20 years. I don't know how many times it needs to be said but... It's a federal case.

State, or Federal.

You seem to speak from experience. Perhaps you could name an animal that routinely has sex with it's young before they are sexually mature then?

But in males who are approaching the age of sexual maturity, the drive to engage in sexual activities is uncontrolled (as in my humping puppy example), so your argument there is flawed.

In any event, just because an animal is physically able to breed does not equal any kind of release of pheromones. Cats don't breed at the age of sexual "maturity" they start breeding after the age of cat adulthood (18 months-ish) and then only when they are in "heat," as in, cats breed seasonally, not anytime like humans can do (yes, women can and do have and want to have sex, even when they are not ovulating, a serious distinction to be made from just about all animal species).

What is the point of pornography if not to to stimulate the feeling of sexuallity and having sex?

Who, with access to actual sex options, would choose to read a porn manga instead, or in order to become aroused?

By my understanding, men use porn as an outlet for sexual frustrations, as in, in the absense of access to sexual options (as the guys at work have joked about the one single guy we have who is clearly causing Domo to kill kittens).

Porn is for solitary self-pleasure, and once release is achieved, sexual desire declines. The argument that "pedophiles use depictions of child pornography to incite children into sex" is unfounded and unproven.

It is all akin to saying, "the Saw movies make people not only want to lock people in rooms, threatening to kill them in horrible ways if they don't cut their own limbs off, but also want to incite people into wanting to be locked in those rooms and be forced to do those things by showing them those movies."

That's a serious inductive fallacy.

Pedophiles seek out child pornogaphy, they are not created by its existence.

Quote:

The point I'm trying to show is that the visual stimulation of sexual activity by child porn, be it virtual, or actual, is by nature perverse, and that is the reason society recoils away from it the way it does. Some here have attacked Colonel Wolf for the way he feels towards it, as if they can not understand why he, and others, including myself, would feel that way, and I wanted to explain why. It should also explain why the State of Iowa wants to send Mr. Handley to prison for 20 years. A sentence that even I, feeling what I do towards any type for child porn, find far too excessive, as the charge is only having it in his possession, and importing more of it. Sadly a convicted paedophile here in the UK, only gets 5 years, though I have read that the same would get more time there in the US.

I understand your position, but mine is the question of where you are drawing the line here. If you concede that owning fictional depictions of children engaging in sexual activity (and not even actual child porn itself) is not as severe a "crime" as actual child sexual abuse, where does it fall on your "this guy should be locked up" meter?

Do you really think even slapping him on the wrist for a few years in a jail cell is going to change whatever "tendencies towards pedophilia" you think he has? Is it going to make the world a safer place to restrict his movements for a few years? Is it going to stop other pedophiles from wanting to have sex with children, or seek it out, with or without access to fictional depictions? Isn't this just "peace of mind" philosophizing? My argument is that no actual children will be any safer by locking this guy up, and for me that is enough to defend his right to own these books. I'm not defending actual child pornography. That's a crime because actual people are being abused. No one here that I know if is defending that.

Quote:

But still the question that Mr. Handely and those defending him will have to answer is, why do you have such an interest in depictions of children having sex, to have spent so much of your income on it? If I were a member of the jury, I would want to know why.

I think Mr. Neil Gaiman answered that question quite succinctly in his blog entry of December 1st. However, I will state that he is being prosecuted for a handful (5 or 6 volumes) of manga out of a collection in the thousands. How does that translate into, "so much of" his income on it? He had a couple books with "children" (as of yet uproven) in "sexually explicit situations" (also unclarified and unproven). Furthermore, why do you automatically assume that just because someone is interested in art depicting underaged sexual activitity equals pedophiliac tendencies? You're connecting A to B as if the arbitrary order of our alphabet were proof that one letter exists before the other (when obviously the order of letters is dependent upon the word being spelled). "I look at artwork with underaged depictions of people in sexual situations" does not equal "I want to have sex with children" which does also not equal "I am planning on having sex with children." You want to put someone in jail (albeit "briefly?") because you are making an assumption without proof. Our justice system in the US believes in "innocence until proven guilty," as in you are going to have to prove that A leads to B leads to C (as feat as yet unproven by anyone, including government studies) before I'm going to accept that this guy deserves jailtime for buying some comic books.

nikandros wrote:

Mohawk is making the claim that pedophilia is exclusive to humans, thus unnatural, meaning that doujins depicting it shouldn't exist. If pedophilia isn't a part of the natural sex drive of living animals then it might make a slightly more compelling case to state that lolicon/shotacon doujins will incite pedophiles into action, since its an unnatural urge of mankind. So if one can prove that animals also display pedophilic tendencies, it might mean that the doujins just fill in an innate urge in humans. Its not dissimilar to the argument that homosexuality is natural and should be tolerated. This is different obviously in that pedophiles shouldn't be allowed to have their ideal mate, but if they have totally natural urges towards children, they should have a legal means to sate them, for their own benefit, and for the benefit of the rest of society. Since after all, if they cannot meet those urges, rape is more likely. Trying to force a person who is born with the predisposition towards attraction to children to no longer have the feelings would work as well as doing the same thing to a gay man. The pedophile will naturally sneak behind others backs and attack children, just like a man who is forced to not be gay will be miserable and find a means to have his sex in secret, generally in less than safe ways. Or thats my view on it, in regards to mohawks post.

I get that argument, but I have objections. First and foremost is that the argument for the defense of homosexuality as "natural" and therefore must be tolerated is ridiculous and distracts attention from what is actually important about homosexual activity. It does not need to be tolerated because the people engaging in it can't "help it." It should be tolerated because those engaging in it are not hurting anyone (assuming we are talking about consensual homosexual relations, of course, which should be obvious since sexuality is not synonymous with rape). The exact same argument could be made for those who have a "tendency" towards an interest in sex with under-aged individuals. As long as they are not actually breaking the law (by, you know, raping any children) they do not deserve the ridicule and/or humiliation that is thrust upon them by society. Yes, rape is wrong, but it is wrong for everyone, not just children. We get up in arms about it because children cannot defend themselves and often cannot even speak for themselves (so we do it for them).

The flaw in the system is that people assume that access to pornography (the kind that is not already breaking the law by actually exploiting non-consenting individuals) is driving up the "desire" to commit illegal activities. In the already mentioned Neil Gaiman blog entry he posted a link to an article that attepted to debunk that very argument: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/rape-porn-and-criminality-political.php

My point with my last post was that the correlation between animals and pedophilia is irrelevant to the argument about the cause of pedophilia in humans because there is no evidence whatsoever that proves access to fictional depictions of it causes actual desire to act on any potential "tendencies."

Wait..Are you saying this Domo person trakes his sexual frustrations out on kittens by killing them? I rest my case right there. How barbaric! What is he like?

I understand that, and again I'm not calling for him to be sent to prision ether. I don't know why you think I have, if you have completely read all my postings. I do believe, however, that now he has been discovered to have interests in child porn, that he should at least be monitored.

I think you're making a few assumptions of your own rather irrationally yourself.

Also that was the arguement that the Who gutarist Pete Townsend used when he was convicted for downloading child porn pictures on his computer. He still ended up with a probation and his name on the sex offenders register. Your argument is not with me. It's with the judge and jury.

The subject is not the sexual maturity of animals or anything up that alley.