You honestly wouldn't care if someone masturbated while viewing a picture of your child????? What kind of person are you???? Even if the bastard never touched a child in his life, I wouldn't want him fantasizing over my daughter and would kill him if I caught him doing it.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

If I knew someone was jerkin' off to a photo of my kid, I'd beat him until he stopped bleeding...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

So it hurts your feelings and thats why it should be banned? I'm trying to figure out how you guys think.

And we're trying to figure out how you do...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Do you endorse the "Martijn vereniging" ?

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Hurt my feelings???? No, it would fucking piss me off if a sick asshole was using a picture of my young daughter to get his rocks off. I think most decent parents would feel this way...

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I don't believe she said it should be banned. She is personally against it, and her reaction would be purely personal.

Afterall, masturbating to a regular picture of a child is not illegal, because pictures of children usually don't classify as child pornography. Child porn is basically:

-Children engaged in sexual acts.
-Children in sexually suggestive positions (clothed or nude).
-Images focusing on the genitals or genital area of a child (clothed or nude).

__________________
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” -Dr. Carl Sagan

I have not heard of the name of this organization, but I have ofcourse heard of the comments when a party of pedophiles wanted to run in the '06 Dutch parliamentary elections (were those the same people?).

Their main point is the normalization of seksual relations between adults and children, and that is a bit different than the current topic. While I think that current laws on child pornography are unnecessarily strict, I dont think the same goes for laws that are made for punishing people who sexually abuse children. Sexual relations of these kinds are more of a grey area, and abuse of power over children in such a situation is ofcourse wrong. Showing pictures of children is not the same.

I suppose so, yes.
Their basic tenets are:
The very first one shows the error in their thinking. Children are not miniature version of adults. They're developing and CANNOT give consent as consent implies full realization of the implications of the consent.

You should give the EXACT circumstances that motivated your post. If it's a new law in Holland, inspired by the CU and endorsed by the CDA, which I think it might be, you should provide the text of the law and explain the legal situation that existed before this law, as well as the political situation of the CU.
Without context, you'll just get hammered down, and are certain to lose any credibility at all.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

I think that is true in many cases, so I sort of agree with this.

The direct cause that lead me to posting this was another discussion I observed about the recent catch of a "child porn network" in Germany, where worldwide 12.000 people were sharing content.

But ofcourse this is part of a trend of the past year where stuff like this is more prominently in the news. The pedo-party ("partij voor naastenliefde, vrijheid en diversiteit" = "party for love, freedom and diversity" its called I just read) plays a role, as does the rise of CU and moral-based sexual legislation, and king-to-be Wilhelm IV's taking down a website which posted pictured of his fully clothed daughter, and the ban on intercourse between digital children in second life.

It all seems to be a bit over the top. I dont see how this is helping anyone.

I guess the part I would agree with you on is how the many laws being passed are allowing law enforcement to lose focus on actual child abuse. I'll admit, I can't say whether these new laws have helped or hindered the apprehension of people who rape children and/or distribute pictures of child molestation. But it seems to me, if you're making cyber police look out for all sorts of crazy things (like two 25 year old adults 'simulating' child porn), you're going to have less time to focus on real child rape that involves real children.

Frankly, I don't care about people who get their rocks off on pictures of children in bathing suits or whatever. They should be the least of people's concerns. Focus on getting the people who actually molest children, focus on the people that distribute the material and/or profit from it. If you cut off the source of child porn, then you'll have a much far reaching effect on the seedy underworld of child exploitation.

__________________
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” -Dr. Carl Sagan

You have some growing up to do. You need to figure YOURSELF out. Don't waste time trying to figure out people whose only communication with you is on the internet.

You'll only remain in your confused state that much longer.

I know you'll reject what I'm saying. It's part of your confused state.

This isn't a complex issue. It's not hard to understand. That you're unable to grasp it ..........

........I'm not going to repeat myself.

It always holds true. Sexual relationships that involve an immature person are devastating to the psychological development of the victim. The only grey area here is the boundary (the age of consent). That is culturally defined and as such can be argued to and fro. But the essence of the case doesn't change.

You should differentiate more clearly between these different issues. If you trump them all together, it will appear that the least reprehensible is used as a rationale for the most reprehensible. Whether Wilhelm puts up pictures of his kids on a website or not, for whatever reasons, is his business and his business alone. That is miles away from what the pedo-party or the Martijn vereniging has in mind, which is complete acceptance of sexual relationships between minors and adults.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

It's not hurt feelings, but the parents desire to protect their children from anyone who would take advantage of them.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Child Molestation and Child pornography is a crime of opportunity, and a "crime of progression"...meaning someone may have an underlying desire or attraction to children but not succumb to temptation because it had yet presented itself.

Sort of like any other item that one may covet - say a big screen TV - if you never see one, or rarely see one the desire to get one is not front and center - however if you see one everywhere you go there is a much higher likelihood that you will fall into the temptation.

Child pornography is against the law because the availability of it can and DOES increase the temptation of a sick mind.