Milovana.com

No sexytimes, you are still the one who gets this dead wrong and read entirely different things into people's posts than what they actually write.

No one said making porn with minors is ok, including the post you just quoted.

Fantasy porn on the other hand, where cartoons or adult actors are used, obviously does not involve children at all.

janmb wrote:No sexytimes, you are still the one who gets this dead wrong and read entirely different things into people's posts than what they actually write.

No one said making porn with minors is ok, including the post you just quoted.

Fantasy porn on the other hand, where cartoons or adult actors are used, obviously does not involve children at all.

Come on man. He specifically said child porn isn't bad. Directed me to ask a professional in the field who deals with pedos, implying that a therapist would say it is great for kids to be in porn and that it is actually a good thing for the world. Then he continued and mumbled something about Africa. Seriously. Take a closer look!

Sexytimes5: Ok, I can see now that you have absolutely no clue about child porn at all.. all your "knowledge" you have about this area is from TV, movies or some stupid texts on the internet. I will react on some of those things you wrote, and then Im gone for good.

People taking nude and sexual pictures and making porno movies of children actually perpetuates the objectification and abuse of children and harms them.

Most of the "Child porn" on the internet these days is in the form of fantasy, stories, pictures of naked kids on the beach, or not even naked kids on the beach. If we go for extreme, there are some pictures of naked kids from family albums. Please tell me how this harms them. If you are talking about hardcore porn, you cant fight against that... it will always be here, it will always be secret and well organized. This organizations are comparable to drug cartels. You cant defeat them, you can just hold them in minority, and thanks god, child porn "industry" is now in minority.. in fact the situation cant get much better as it is now. Long story short, its not something you can solve just over the internet.

The fact that little kids shouldn't be used in pornographic ways isn't in question. I'm no moralist! Common sense dictates that kids and porn don't belong together. Seriously! Do you have any children in your life you would like to pose for some pictures or to be used in any form in the child porn arena? I should hope not! Crazy!

Im not sure what pornographic means for you.. its just playing with words and english is not my first language. BUT Im professional photographer, I do take fine art photos of naked girls, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You can find thousands of them on the internet. And if you have on your mind really hardcore porn with kids, you will need whole organization I talked about, for spreading them. If not you will sit in jail very soon. And Im talking about Europe right know, not really sure about other parts of world. Also pedophiles dont need to see sex with children. Most of them is looking just for naked kids, alone on the photos. This is proof information from therapist, Im sure you have never talked with one of them.

Nothing at all negative will happen if kids are protected from abuse by not having child porn out there. It would actually make a positive difference in the lives of the many thousands of kids used in the industry.

I kind of answered that before.. child porn pictures spreading on the internet nowadays are mostly old as fuck, you cant protect anyone by now. Child porn is actually the number 1 guarded crime at the moment, in mature world, and there is no point fighting against it over the internet. You are 10 years late.

Do you think a therapist would tell a rapist it's perfectly fine to rape people?

No I dont.. I have never say that. But therapist will advise him to see some rape porn, and see if that will help.

Do you think a therapist would tell us that child pornography is ok?

I know some of them by myself, thats why I was so angry about this thread. And yes they did tell that, multiple times. But you must look for information somewhere else then in your moral soul or "general known truths". I understand that you want to protect children.. but every help must be elaborated before. You are just wasting your energy here.

Also I forgot to mention in my last post, that being pedophile doesnt mean "I rape children and want to see them suffer" it means "I love children". There is more pedophiles walking on the earth than you can imagine. There is not, and never will be proof that lots of teachers and people who works with children are pedophiles. But few of them admitted that in past. The analogy with gays is sooo right here.

People are animals. Some heterosexuals rapes women, some pedophiles rapes children. Act is always zenith of denial.

Sexytimes 5 wrote:He specifically said child porn isn't bad.

I didn't read it that way. If so, that's further than I'm willing to go. It can still be claimed that child porn may in fact keep child abuse down rather than up, since one porn movie can potentially keep many pedos from physically abusing children themselves. Even so, child porn is never ok since it directly abuses the kids involved. Again, fiction is a completely different story though.

The rest of his points are spot on too.

Has anyone here even read the article I posted earlier? http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html - There are factual reports of working consensual partnerships between pedophiles and minors. I don't promote that, I don't condamn it either. As I have been repeatedly stating, Moral is 100% subjective.

I'm against the abuse of the children, but to be honest, there is no data on how consensual sexual interaction between a minor and pedophile affects the minor in question. I will not say child porn is good, but I oppose to call it bad if there isn't factual evidence that the minor was forced/abused or that it is harmful to him in another way.

So to put it simplified: Yes, I don't think child porn is inherently bad.

At the very least people ought to shut up, stop, kick out prejudice, emotion and commonly accepted truths, and think for themselves. Entirely too often people speak in a loud voice without ever diving into the details of the topic at all.

Listering wrote:Im watching this thread for a long time.. and I wanted to stay away, far away.. but I cant and even if nobody cares about my opinion for sure I have to write it.

First of all, I understand why some tease was taken down.. we got laws etc. and if admins want to be careful, Im totally fine with it. Afterall its their site.

But I want to target those so called moralists here. Can you stop for a second, and think about what you are saying? Or read everything you wrote? You are on the site where raping people, torturing them and humiliating them is considered as exciting behavior.. you think that when you fight here against child porn you are saving anyone? Sorry to destroy your dreams.. but no.. you are not.

And I will be even more evil to your ideals.. fighting against child porn fiction, art and even photos is in fact harming children. You think that when you delete all the stories from the internet, involving anyone younger then 18, paedophilia will dissaper from earth? People will just go to streets at evening.. and guess what happens there. You can object that if you delete and ban photos, nobody will take pictures of kids. Do you really believe it? If those big organizations focusing on children porn bussiness wont be able to spread photos.. what do you think they will sell hm?

Now you can tell that this is all bullshit, based on opinions. Ok why not.. then I dare you to ask any psychologist who works with pedophiles.. anyone really with some experience, and ask him if child pornography is bad. Guess what they answer to you. Just a little hint, imagine that in one week there will be no porn, no naked girls on the internet.. just nothing. Have you ever been in middle Africa? Kongo maybe? You should visit this lovely land and try to moralize it.

There is thick line between fantasy and reality. Dont fight against the fantasy on the internet, fight against the crime outside. Saying "people rape children because they read it in story" is like saying computer games kill people. Its exactly the same bullshit. Rapist will rape, no matter what he see on the internet. Killer will kill no matter what he is playing in his free time.

I see the point that is continually made - if you take away the outlet for the pedo's, then they have no place else to go to explore their "kink", right? And to a point, I agree - everybody needs a *healthy* outlet for their passions - if they don't get them out, they continue to build pressure until the individual can no longer control them, and they lash out in a way that causes harm to someone else (on some level). But the same can be said for people with habitually violent tendencies, self-mutilation, or nearly any other destructive behavior. And I know what you're going to say - that pedophilia in and of itself is no more a harmful behavior than being homosexual is. I'm not sure I'd agree - being homosexual doesn't sexualize a group of people that don't have the capability of protecting themselves. Children are young, inexperienced in the world, and largely unprepared for the life-altering ramifications of being implied in a sexual connotation - in any form. The only possible exception to this *might* be hentai - ironically, where the topic of this thread came into play in the first place. The obvious argument is that pedophilia is immoral, which is where the topic of subjective morals comes into play. The problem is - its not subjective. Sexualizing children is wrong. There's no rational justification for it. There is no rational justification for rape, murder, torture, kidnapping, and/or many other violent crimes either. These are all illegal based upon morality - killing another person is morally wrong, therefore it is made illegal by society's' laws. Those moralities are justified by rational facts - some people tend to ignore them, and kill other people anyways. Just because they don't recognize the morality in question doesn't make the crime any less offensive. In the end, debating the legitimacy of pedophilia is pointless, because #1 - the site administrator won't support any such material here anyways, and #2, in most places in the world, it's a crime. Let me back that up, pedophilia as its defined isn't a crime, but posessing child pornography most definitely *is* illegal - which is the real issue. We aren't talking about a preference, we're talking about the physical ownership and ability to view material that appeals to pedophiles. That is most definitely illegal no matter where you go.

LittleElfBoy wrote:
I'm against the abuse of the children, but to be honest, there is no data on how consensual sexual interaction between a minor and pedophile affects the minor in question. I will not say child porn is good, but I oppose to call it bad if there isn't factual evidence that the minor was forced/abused or that it is harmful to him in another way.

So to put it simplified: Yes, I don't think child porn is inherently bad.

There are very few things that would actually give me cause to post on this site anymore....but that statement for me takes the cake...

A little background, I work with children, specifically vulnerable children so I find the content of this thread to be quite personal.

To be frank, there is no such thing as a consensual relationship between a minor and a pedophile. They are considered a minor for the pure and simple reason that they are no old enough to make a judgement on there own accord as deemed by society. It is in the interest of the child that they are protected until they are of an appropriate age to protect themselves.

But I don't feel that a so called relationship is the crux of the issue here.

A point was made earlier about someone taking a picture of a naked child at the beach and saying that the action was harmless? I cannot agree with this. This is akin to saying that someone taking a picture of a rape or a murder is not in the wrong because they themselves are no committing the deed, or even as simple as someone taking pictures of a naked woman in a dressing room at a store or though an open windows in the apartment across the street. How can that no be considered inappropriate? The sad truth is that these are not victimless crimes and would be, by almost any court, be considered forms of abuse.

The issue of the under age cartoons. The pure and simple fact is, regardless of opinion or moral objectification , these images used in a sexual way are against the law. So why is this being debated? What if it was content depicting murder? Just because the original murder was not committed for the purposes of the tease, does that make the content any less illegal? The why should a cartoon drawing of a child be treated any different from something equally as illegal?

The most disturbing issue here is the defence of something that a massive majority consider to be criminal activity and hiding behind a banner of subjective morals or "no censorship here!"

Are you just looking for something to fight against, because if so, pick a worthier cause and respect the protection of theses who need it.

Anna

LittleElfBoy wrote:

Sexytimes 5 wrote:

LittleElfBoy wrote:>moralfag
>subjective morals

[/thread]

Should I assume you are talking to me since you posted right after me? I just want to check before I type you a targeted response. Don't want to jump the gun and attack you unjustly. Please elaborate if you could be so kind and I'll get back with you.

I did. I didn't feel like putting in more, because your only argument were subjective morals. I can understand the legal problem for the site and to put it bluntly: I never saw a problem with any of the removed teases and I don't give a fuck if other people think they're abhorrent. But feel free to throw another hateful rant at me, I could use some lulz.

Another hateful rant! Are you serious elfboy? I wasn't hateful at all. Do you like child porn? That's what my statement was targeted at when you threw out the hateful slurs. I was talking about what has been discussed in the thread. I never condemned a single tease. Only the idea that seemed to be floating out here that it's somehow ok to promote child porn to give pedophiles something they want. I looked thru a few of them and they didn’t seem to promote the abuse of kids but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it and make sure we draw the line somewhere.

Moralfag? Seriously? Subjective morals? Where are you coming from?
What do you mean by subjective? Do you mean my perception concerning pedophiles isn't based in reality? Subjective morals! Holy crap! Kids man! It pretty *&#$@*@ clear.

If you’re not a pedophile then you need to get a grip with the reality that depicting underage kids sexually is very negative and isn't a simple moral issue or a fetish. If you’re not a pedophile you should understand and you should care. Thankfully, depicting underage characters in a cartoon or regular tease isn't an option here anyway.

Nobody has said that the cartoon teases are a problem in general. They are only a problem when the author talks about the character being underage or it is obvious the character is in preschool or something. The same would be true if you used regular pictures of a model known to be 18 or older in a tease and gave her character an underage sexual role in the tease.

LittleElfBoy wrote:
Has anyone here even read the article I posted earlier? http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html - There are factual reports of working consensual partnerships between pedophiles and minors. I don't promote that, I don't condamn it either. As I have been repeatedly stating, Moral is 100% subjective.

I'm against the abuse of the children, but to be honest, there is no data on how consensual sexual interaction between a minor and pedophile affects the minor in question. I will not say child porn is good, but I oppose to call it bad if there isn't factual evidence that the minor was forced/abused or that it is harmful to him in another way.

So to put it simplified: Yes, I don't think child porn is inherently bad.

It makes me get a little sick when I think about all the adults out there that abuse children for real and that is why I posted. I can’t believe there are people who don’t think it is a good idea to deny pedophile themed teases. It’s common sense!

Do you have a lick of sense? You need factual evidence that child porn is bad? OMG! Do you want stats? Common sense should tell you that it's very bad and a detriment to any kids used by the producers of it. The word consensual doesn't apply. Kids don't have the capacity to consent. We aren't talking about high school sweethearts here. We are talking about little innocent kids that get their innocence stolen by horrible people. It has no place on Milo and shouldn't be remotely related to anything any of us do here sexually in our fantasies. The fact that there are so many people looking at the stuff is scary and creates the demand that leads to more kids being abused. Think about it.

To Listering

You are very wrong about my knowledge. I know people who were molested by pedophiles as children and it scars them for life. There isn't any excuse for their behavior. Yes, it is a behavior that can be controlled.
I don't need to talk to some professional that earns a living coming up with excuses for people who mess with children.

Any adult person who has a sexual encounter with a little kid harms that child. No Question Whatsoever. Just because they love the kid in their twisted mind doesn't mean the kid isn't damaged for life.

The fact that you think it's good to lump gays into the same category as pedophiles puzzles me.

The difference between the therapist theoretically telling a rapist to watch rape porn and telling a child molester to watch kids is that rape porn is a fantasy with consenting adults. Not even in the same universe.

I'm not fighting anything. I'm discussing an issue that came up in this thread that concerned me. It's the Milo way of doing things.

Hey Janmb

I wasn't talking about non-nude/non-pornographic settings or a pedophile getting his jollies off to a cartoon. We were talking about child porn in general. Everyone knows that people who watch kiddie porn (not cartoons) are actively supporting the abuse of kids.

I understand what you're saying about fantasy and reality and nobody would say that a fantasy in your head is the same as doing or a cartoon hurts anyone. The problem with pedos is that they can't get a fix without a kid being hurt unless they get off by looking at normal everyday stuff of kids or cartoons. Fantasizing about little kids? I don't get it or the relation to sexual orientation. Lets agree to disagree about that for now I guess.

If it turns out you’re right about their "alignment" being equal to gays we might be hearing the pedophile lobby asking for equal protection under the law and the right to marry little kids in a few years. Man, I hope you’re wrong for the sake of the children.

The bottom line is that none of us have to worry about it being on this site. Thank you admin.

I think I will "shut up" now. However, I don't see it as prejudice to argue on behalf of kids. I just don't see the child porn thing as being in the same realm as any of our adult stuff. It is one thing that governments should ban and censor. Everywhere they can.

You haven't given any factual evidence until now. All I see is you pointing out repeatly how obviously wrong it is and that it is against the law. I'm no pedophile, but I can imagine how it must be to be one.

LittleElfBoy wrote:You haven't given any factual evidence until now. All I see is you pointing out repeatly how obviously wrong it is and that it is against the law. I'm no pedophile, but I can imagine how it must be to be one.

You made me curse right now! Damn! Son of a.... What the f... Are you fu..... kidding me? I'm done trying to talk nice to anyone who wants to defend pedophiles after this so please, please get it right this time in your head.

Empathy for the monsters who destroy the lives of children. I guess you haven't ever known a person who has been abused as a child by a pedophile. The sad truth is that you probably do know someone who was sexually abused. They probably have adult "issues" and never shared their childhood trauma with anyone.

One fact that you can count on is that a vast majority of sexual child abuse cases go unreported. Think about the people you know who might have anger or relationship problems. It's possible that they were abused as a child. Some of it isn't directly related to the child porn industry but it is a close cousin.

I personally have empathy and compassion for the innocent little people damaged by the horrible predatory animals out there. Please just trust me when I say that child porn is a massively damaging thing in the lives of the young victims. A young kid has no defense against these predators.

If you can relate and empathize with the pedophile and not grasp the basic truth that the suffering of children takes place to fulfill their needs. If you can’t feel compassion or empathize with the innocent there might not be any hope for you. I hope this isn’t the case but if it is please turn your heart towards the real victims of child abuse and child porn.

Don't mess with kids- Peace-Out!

This thread became too big fot me to read entire posts, sorry, so I may repeat something already said.

monsters who destroy the lives of children.

there goes prejudice and blindly accepted social stereotype. A lot of times you was pointed out that pedophile does not necessarily go about raping a 6 year old child every now and then, ruining his life completely. Not only that, but fucking 17yo girl is pedohilia too, even if she's fully developed and ready to bear children (and I'll talk about it a bit later too). But you are blindly following the known truth "this is WRONG" and don't want to hear anything. Well, go on. I don't agree that making child porn is OK too, but I don't agree with you neither.

They are considered a minor for the pure and simple reason that they are no old enough to make a judgement on there own accord as deemed by society.

This is a good point to an extent. Yes, up to a certain age children are not sexual and anything done to them in that direction should be avioded. But... People age and develop, and are ready for sex WAY earlier than 18 years old. Why should 14 year old people be banned from having sex? I don't quite understand that. It's not some prescious act that should be shared only with husband or wife anymore. It does not bear risks of getting a desiese or pregnacy. In fact, banning sex for minors only boosts those risks, because they are too often uncomfortable to buy a condom. Right now, sex is a normal and pretty common continuation of relationship between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. So why is it still such a hudge and big deal about protecting underaged from sex? Today it's no less stupid than protecting them from doing sports or leaving home. Yea, nobody argues the need to protect children from different threats. But is sex one of those threats really? Is it all right to protect a person from something that nature starts asking him/her to pursue? I don't think so, not anymore. Unexpected pregnacy, venerical ilnesses - we should protect them from that. But we'd do a much better job if we'd stopped making sex so much of a big deal.

Nezhul wrote:

They are considered a minor for the pure and simple reason that they are no old enough to make a judgement on there own accord as deemed by society.

This is a good point to an extent. Yes, up to a certain age children are not sexual and anything done to them in that direction should be avioded. But... People age and develop, and are ready for sex WAY earlier than 18 years old. Why should 14 year old people be banned from having sex? I don't quite understand that. It's not some prescious act that should be shared only with husband or wife anymore. It does not bear risks of getting a desiese or pregnacy. In fact, banning sex for minors only boosts those risks, because they are too often uncomfortable to buy a condom. Right now, sex is a normal and pretty common continuation of relationship between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. So why is it still such a hudge and big deal about protecting underaged from sex? Today it's no less stupid than protecting them from doing sports or leaving home. Yea, nobody argues the need to protect children from different threats. But is sex one of those threats really? Is it all right to protect a person from something that nature starts asking him/her to pursue? I don't think so, not anymore. Unexpected pregnacy, venerical ilnesses - we should protect them from that. But we'd do a much better job if we'd stopped making sex so much of a big deal.

I actually agree with most of what you said here - I don't necessarily agree with the age groups. I was sexually active way before 18 - and while I can honestly say I didn't fully understand the potential ramifications of what I was engaging in, I can't say that waiting until I was 18 would have made a huge difference either. What I would say though - is that if you're going to have sex, be responsible enough about it to educate oneself, visit a doctor, look into protection, etc.

Back to the subject at hand - the problem is that the greater potential for abuse exists between an adult, and a minor. The subject isn't about consensual sex, it's about the potential for harm to come to a minor by an adult. I won't delve into stereotypes as to why, but I'm sure you can imagine some examples of this, and why it would be a bad thing. Sex isn't something that kids necessarily need to be protected from so much as educated about. But there's a clear divide between sex, and abuse.

Nezhul wrote: In fact, banning sex for minors only boosts those risks, because they are too often uncomfortable to buy a condom. Right now, sex is a normal and pretty common continuation of relationship between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. So why is it still such a hudge and big deal about protecting underaged from sex? Today it's no less stupid than protecting them from doing sports or leaving home. Yea, nobody argues the need to protect children from different threats. But is sex one of those threats really? Is it all right to protect a person from something that nature starts asking him/her to pursue? I don't think so, not anymore. Unexpected pregnacy, venerical ilnesses - we should protect them from that. But we'd do a much better job if we'd stopped making sex so much of a big deal.

I agree to an extent that minors may be ready for sex at a younger age and there are those who are responsible and who will make the right choices in protecting themselves from pregnancy and STD's, but it still stands that the majority of minors do not fall int that groups and sadly they are taken advantage of by adults who seek to sexualise a group that cannot protect themselves.

I totally agree that sex if massively over-glorified and it makes it seem that much more glorious to young people but sadly, sex sells and I think as a society we have become so much more desensitised to it that we are not even aware that is it causing the problems that it is for our younger generations. Then again the same can be said of violence, disrespectful behaviour and a whole host of other issues that we seems to be turning a blind eye too more and more.

Back the the issue at hand however, even if it not made such a big deal of, it does not stop minors being exposed and abused far too often and at the end of it all, that's where I see the problem.

As a group, minors will always be exposed and unprotected more than adults, simply because they lack experience and don't control themselves too well. Right now children are exposed to, say, all sorts of commercials that make them buy stuff they don't really need or want. Children will alawys be exposed and used.
As sex goes, however, I believe that this should be left to parents, rather than laws to control and protect children. At most there should be good educational programmes. Like "children" at the age of 12+ know how to walk over the road by themselves, they know how to go shopping. That's because they are made to understand the importance of doing those things right, and they can follow those rules and cross the road safe. I can't see why the same couldn't be dome about sex. Instead of forbidding the underaged from having sex and stating that it's WRONG, we better be teaching them how to do it RIGHT. Because the forbidding policy can't hold the hormone-driven body from having sex. But lack of information and awareness leads to mistakes. Society in general should help the minors to lead good and safe sexual life, instead of frowning upon the idea itself. Do you imagine how hard it is to go buy a condom at 15 years old? That's the result of sex at that age being WRONG. Instead, the best cource of protecting, REALLY protecting children sexually will be to bring them up with the thought that sex is good, enjoyable, fun... But that it should be engaged with caare, just like walking over a busy road. Children should understand all threats and benefits of having sex with each particular person they lust to, and make judgement, which they can. And going for condoms should be as easy as buying gum. "I want to have good time chewing a gum.", "I want to have fun having sex tonight." - those should be viewed by the society without hysteria and disgust, and then children will be protected more, then they are now. It's easy for pedophiles to engage children, because a pedophile offers minors something they don't know about and have no easy alternative. If those minors knew all about sex and treated it as a normal act, they'd be less easy targets too, because they have a choice to engage in sex with their own kind. Or with people they love.
Even if we leave sex with partners aside, I think that at least porn (at least vanilla and solo) and sexual toys should be wide-avaliable from the age of, say, 10-12 years old. That too will offer some protection for children, because it will halp to relieve their sexual tension and protect from looking for adventure elsewhere.

That's what I think. But you can't just push a button and change how society thinks. However our governments should make movements in this derection steady and one step at a time. Instead they move opposite, trying to "protect" children from having acess to any erotic content, and "protect" them from even knowing wat is sex. This, IMO, is bullshit and doesn't help at all with a lot of sex-connected problems minors get mixed into.