AquaVita

Wrong.


That would be reporting him to the FBI for "speculating" that he was thinking about child porn, or perhaps might possess some, or make some.

The people who reported did so based on what they saw, evidence. The FBI may or may not agree.

But that is a far cry from a "witch-hunt"

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
I'm disgusted that people are reporting this guy to the FBI or other authorities.

Why? Read some of these tortured rationalizations. What's discernible is a fairly archetypal need to impute to children sexual desire and the ability to sexually seduce adults. These are hallmarks of pedophilia. And I have seen the photographs on the site. They are, at the very least, highly questionable. It's not unreasonable to infer that these elements add up to what some observers noticed quite some time ago. In fact Koy teased the former elements from PK's post several pages back, and they remain undisputed.

And practitioners of this sort of behavior should not be walking the streets, in my view.

hezekiah jones

Simply ask PK point blank whether or not he believes children are capable of adult sexual desire, and whether children are in the habit of sexually seducing adults.

If the answers are affirmative, then I can't tell you how many police reports and confessions I have read that assert the exact same defenses. Quite a few.

Debbie T

When I was going to college I worked in an amateur photographer's photo lab. We would see all kinds of amateur photographic images come through the lab. When child porn images or something we felt was exploiting children in anyway we had to report it.

I didn't report this as I didn't look closely past the first page. (I didn't want to line his pockets with money from those that advertise on his site for one, and I didn't want to be subjected to his rationalization of sex with children.) I did however ask others to report him to the FBI for what they felt was on his site.

If I suspect child abuse is going on next door to me, I feel it neccessary to report my suspicions. I can report why my suspicions and the experts can determine if my suspicions warrant an investigation. It's not meant to be a witch hunt but to protect those who are powerless to protect themselves from abusers. Do you believe that when someone suspects child porn they should just ignore it?

The AntiChris

Actually, I did. Can you give some indication, bearing in mind the sensibilities of the freethinkers here, of what you found that was "pornographic".

It's not that I don't believe you - I just don't recall seeing anything that could be called "pornographic" unless, of course, one had a vivid imagination.

I'm quite willing to accept that I may have missed something truly objectionable.

You miss my point completely.

My response was to someone who had formed an opinion of the website based on hearsay alone. This is exactly how mass hysteria starts - gossip, innuendo and hearsay become 'fact'.

Chris

hezekiah jones

Kiddie Porn, Children, and Federal Laws

Pay special attention to the following, under "Sexually Explicit Conduct":

Keep this in mind if browsing PK's site.

Debbie T

Who was this person who based their opinion on hearsay alone?

Koyaanisqatsi

I don't know, why don't you try to answer it. So far you have not. You have only avoided dealing with the question with obvious evasion clearly delineated by me (and others).

That you understand the intent of my question is apparent in your very next line:

The only element you (continue to) refuse to address. You've spewed for six pages now about everything but the responsibility of the adult, desperately attempting to make it seem as if sex in general is a glorious, marvelous thing, with the implication being that there is no harm being inflicted by a mature adult taking advantage of an immature child's ignorance toward their sexuality as a means to attain the sexual gratification of the adult for the adult's pleasure; a clearly sociopathic avoidance of any culpability or empathy on the adult's part.

You see, you do understand the question I posed to you. Why then do you continue to avoid addressing it? Skating around and around and around the issue you so clearly understand is what I am and will be addressing, so to continue to do so in this manner only speaks volumes to the fact that you acknowledge its gravity and seek everything in your rhetorical power to avoid addressing it.

Now why would you do this?

You have covered everything but the adult's responsibility ad nauseam, yet, as this and all other posts betray, it is clearly the most important, relevant issue of all; indeed the central issue to the whole damn thing. You are advocating (either directly or indirectly) a course of action that has demonstrably detrimentally effected countless children (some of which have posted their direct testimonial to this end here), to which you add insult to injury by implying that you somehow know better about what is at the heart of their psychological trauma, contradicting almost the entirety of documented case study of this abherrant behavior for decades.

Your reason? Because society just doesn't understand the beauty and majesty of childhood sexuality.

But this isn't an issue of a child's innocent explorations of their own sexuality; this is an issue of an adult taking advantage of that ignorance for the fulfillment of their own sexual needs, thus it is the central issue of concern.

You see yourself as a champion on a moral crusade, yet in reality you merely advocate that an adult has no responsibility in the matter and is free to use a child's ignorance for the adult's sexual gratification. It is therefore not an issue of childhood sexuality; it is an issue of adult sexuality.

Funny how little if anything you have posted seems to address that complexity, other than to pay lip service to it on your way toward lofty justification through an erroneous call to some imaginary, untenable moral crusade for "the children's" future.

We've seen the children's future in you; a once violated child who apparently has grown up to become an abuser of children; displaying arguably sociopathic tendencies in lack of empathy and understanding as well as a highly self-delusional fantasy world in which serious psychological damage gets magically dismissed as society's inability to concot the same delusional rationalizations about the actions of a pedophile who preys upon a child's innocence for the pedophile's own sexual gratification.

No, the right thing for them to do is to seek serious psychiatric or psychological treatment; to recognize the pattern of abused to abuser and seek to reinstate the empathy such a loss so readily obtains in the exonerative actions of the predator/prey relationship. It is abundantly documented time and time again (as your own case study appears to corroborate); the victim cannot reconcile why they were victimized, so they grow up to become like predators.

It is especially prevalent in cases of physical abuse from a parent. The child is beaten and cannot understand how a supposedly loving parent would do such a thing to them. They then grow up and have children of their own, so they inflict the same punishment (usually escalatory) on their own children, not because the child has done something to deserve it, but because the adult is attempting to exonerate the behavior of the parent who abused them.

It is a vicious and horrific cycle that can and has been broken through seeking psychological treatment. It cannot, however, be broken, by avoiding one's own responsibility and simply advocating the continuance of the cycle, justifying and rationalizing it as if this is just "normal" behavior.

It is not. It is adnormal behavior that has a direct correlative cause and effect (again, as your own experience apparently revealsl, if indeed you act in the manner you advocate).

So you justify a form of rape, because of a psychological condtion that was inflicted upon the child by an early predator/prey relationship and not the treatment of such a condition in order to stop the cycle?

It isn't that sex with children is illegal because of no legitimate reason or concerns; it is illegal because of the demonstrable adverse harms it necessarily inflicts due to the lack of responsible action on behalf of the adult.

It is the adult's fault, plain and simple. That is where the responsibility lies.

If one cannot control their sexual urge to prey upon a child's innocence, then it is incumbent upon the adult to seek help regarding such apparent and documented traumatic actions. Failing that, it is up to society and the jurisprudence to act in a manner the adult is apparently incapable of acting in of their own volition, just like with any other form of abuse, yes?

You haven't been so far, so I seriously doubt this and sense yet another shift in focus....

We haven't been discussing childhood sexuality; we've been discussing adults who take advantage of childhood sexuality in order to fulfil the adult's sexual needs.

The adult is the one who acts upon a child's sexuality for the purposes of achieving the adult's sexual gratification.

For one being so deliberately evasive, how in the world can you continue to pretend that this isn't the most important issue of all of this? Other than a sociopathic lack of empathy, I can see no other explanation for your continued avoidance of the adult's responsibility (i.e., culpability) in the actions an adult makes in regard to a child's sexuality.

No one is questiong whether or not children are sexually curious or even sexually active to some degree throughout their pre-pubescent growth; the question is, what kind of person takes advantage of that sexuality for their own sexual gratification.

You are implying that a pedophile simply facilitates a child's wishes for the child's sake, which isn't true in the slightest (no matter how delusional the state of mind of the pedophile may be in this regard). The pedophile is engaging and encouraging a child's natural curiousity for the pedophile's sexual needs and gratification.

That is the issue you constantly refuse or are incapable of addressing and, as you quite clearly understand from this post, know is the case, yet you keep trying to avoid dealing with it regardless.

Why? You have already dealt more than sufficiently with all other aspects for six pages now. Why consistently and obstinately omit dealing with this central issue; the sexual gratification of the pedophile and/or the responsibility an adult has to not take advantage of a child for the adult's sexual needs?

Yes.

No. There can be nothing positive in an adult who takes advantage of a child's immaturity for the adult's sexual gratification. This is not just my opinion, it is the result of countless case studies, the entirety of the psychological documentation and study of the issue and the direct testimonials of victims that have had the tremendous courage to post their own stories here, as well as a simple deconstruction of your own supposed experience; that of an abused child growing up to either abuse others or advocate the abuse of others.

Quite literally, with almost every post you make, the detrimental effects of the "philosophy" you appear to be advocating can be witnessed by all, but, apparently, yourself (though, again, you seem perfectly capable of recognizing the issue at the same time you so desperately try to obfuscate its importance or impact in the discussion).

Why? There are two people involved in this issue; one is the child the other is the adult. Why have you done almost nothing but focus on the child and in primarily generallized terms instead of specifically focused on the particulars of both sides of such advocacy?

Does the adult achieve sexual gratification from engaging in sexaul relations with the child, yes or no?

I asked you previously to provide just one example in which adult/child sex would not be either forced or an example of rape.

I am still waiting for you to do so.

No, you did not. You carefully avoided any direct answer to the intent of the question; an intent this post betrays you are fully aware of and continue to avoid at all costs.

Everyone but you, apparently, is capable of recognizing this simple fact.

There are none. How can I give you what you yourself cannot provide?

If you think in any way that what you've presented so far has been any kind of example of a positive effect, then you are demonstrably incorrect.

You have only spewed endlessly on the glories and majesty of a child's sexuality, carfefully and repeatedly ommitting the specifics of adult/child sex.

Until you focus on what the adult gets out of this, then we have yet to even explore adult/child sex.

As the testimonials here demonstrate (and your own supposed history), there have been and can be no positive effects, so I suggest if you have any, please present the scenario in which a positive effect obtains when an adult engages in sex with a child from the adult's position.

We already know what obtains from the child's position.

So you tell us what thrills a pedophile gets out of having sex with or otherwise molesting innocent, ignorant children? You want to have an intelligent discussion of all of the issue involved, then so be it.

Provide for us just one sepcific example wherein a positive result obtains as I am freely incapable of contradicting the majority of case study and the direct testimonials presented here to find one for you.

I see, so because I am not capable of seeing the world the way you do, I am some how deficient.

Well then fine. Enlighten me.

Provide a specific example of adult/child sex that results in a positive effect for the child and the adult and by extension, society.

Specific. Not yet another generalized, romanticised diatribe on the glories of sex and the moral taboos that so desperately need to be broken.

Detail a specific example of an adult having sexual relations with a child that does not result in the trauma that has been detailed for you by actual victims in this very thread.

Oh, don't worry. We've all learned something. The question is, have you?

Don't bother answering. As with just about everything you've posted so far, it was rhetorical.

If only you were capable of that very thing in life (and her sister, empathy), we wouldn't be having this "discussion."

The AntiChris

Bill Snedden

:notworthy