Here is an email I received in response to one of my essays.
I’m sorry your health is poor and I wish you a full recovery. I have many gay friends — some of them HIV (Human Immuno-deficiency Virus) — and many friends who do not (and, sadly, probably never will) believe in the Bible. I also have friends who are mentally ill. They know of their illnesses and are doing the best they can to overcome them.
But I do not have — nor wish to have — mentally ill friends who refuse to recognize their illnesses and even worse, advocate the acceptance of them. I’m not talking about homosexuality, here — I’m talking about threatening children. I read your stand; on child pornography with a fully-open mind and came away from it with disappointment and disgust. No matter how hard you try to justify your stand, there is no argument — not even when paired with cries of discrimination; or privacy; — you or anyone else can make for being understanding; when it comes to child pornography.
I take it then that in your view any form of child pornography, even artwork, is so disgusting, that it would make sense even to sacrifice real children to paedophiles in order to suppress it.
I’m trying to say this with the love and compassion my Lord requires of me — but you, sir, need professional help and if you don’t get it, then you are making yourself a threat to innocent children.
Where did you get the idea I was a paedophile? I called for more compassionate handling of about a dozen philias my essay . Do you also accuse me of necrophilia? The essay gives ideas on how to reduce the amount of child molesting and rape and how we need to reduce further damage to abused children. Somehow you have twisted it in your mind to condone and encourage child molesting. I know this is a highly emotional topic and it causes people to read into the essay ideas that are not actually there.If you are curious about my sexual philias, see my essay on what I look for in a relationship.
Until that happens, I want nothing more to do with you. Please do not bother making any further attempts to write to me. I have programmed my e-mail engine to reject any messages from your e-mail address.
As you wish.
This is a very emotional topic. It is hard to totally dispassionately read materials that disagree with you. You are not the first one to read into what I said things that were not there. Thanks for the apology.
As someone who has made a nice living posing in front of a camera, I’ve mounted my own private crusade against those who would place innocent children in that same position for pornographic purposes. When I saw your essay on the subject, something snapped and I said some terrible, personal things that were out-of-line. I was so outraged, I was absolutely certain you were lying when you said you wanted to punish child molesters. I think I closed my message by asking you to never try to contact me again — which runs counter to everything Christianity is all about. Earlier today, when a visitor to my home page mentioned your website, it reminded me that I owed you an apology — to you and also to any of your visitors who might have been offended by my message. I’m truly sorry and I hope you can forgive me.
Having said that, I feel I also owe you a better explanation of my position on the subject of legalizing child pornography, even the computer-generated kind (that is, if you’ll allow me — if not, I’ll understand). In the process, I’m going to say some things that are a little too explicit for me to place on my own, relatively conservative website…
It might surprise you that a prude; like me believes that adult pornography, when used as originally intended, is relatively harmless because it doesn’t involve anyone but the person who is looking at it. (Whether or not the user is harming himself is a different subject and is immaterial to this argument.) Although I think it’s rather sad, I see little harm in allowing a lonely man to use a Playboy; magazine to help him take care of his biological urges. (I, personally, would never pose for it, though.) I’m telling you this so you’ll know I’m not opposed to pornography in general. Again, I think it’s sad, but it can serve a purpose.
I think we’ll agree that if a more explicit, hard-core, here’s-two-people-actually-doing-it; magazine were to fall into the hands of a child, it could potentially — I said potentially — be very problematic. At best, the child might look at it for a moment, decide she has no idea what the picture’s about, then toss it aside in favor of the more interesting bug crawling across the floor. At worst, she might become very confused about what she is seeing, misinterpret it entirely and develop serious misconceptions that might come back to haunt her by the time she reaches puberty. But contrary to what a lot of people might think, it’s actually unlikely that the child might decide right then and there to try it with the little boy next door.; She simply doesn’t understand enough of what she sees to want to emulate what the adults are doing in the pictures. Sure, she understands what an adult nurse does and will pretend to apply bandages to her teddy bear — but a naked adult woman performing a sex act on an adult man? What’s going on there? Who cares? Where’s my teddy bear?
My point here is that adult pornography in the hands of a child does not necessarily entice her to be a participant. But pornography showing a child taking part in the activities; is another matter entirely and can even be taken as an open invitation for her to be a part of the action,; even though she might not understand what that action actually is. (She can certainly understand that she’s first supposed to get up on the bed and spread her legs, for example, while the adult molester does something else.) Of course, child pornography was never meant to be given to a child. But when it inadvertently lands in a child’s hands, it is far worse than the case with adult pornography because it might appear to speak directly to her and, in fact, legitimize; doing what a molester might ask her to do. (That’s why some molesters will first show such a photo to a child and then say, Do you think you can do what this little girl is doing?;)
A child molester can use candy, money or approval to seduce a child. Should we ban these too because they can be abused? We normally only ban something when it has no legitimate use.
I know I’m doing a lot of talking about what might; or could; happen. But to me, the danger is as real as the danger of an adult leaving a loaded gun where a child might get her little hands on it.
So you are saying that a childless person should not be permitted to keep anything in his home that would not be perfectly safe for children to play with? No knives, no guns, no poisons, no harsh chemicals. Just in case children might emulate the activities described in books or pictures, the following must be forbidden: murder mysteries, cowbody dramas, cop shows, books about the civil rights movement… Surely a bottle of lye is likely to be far more dangerous to a child than a photo of a naked person, no matter what sexual act they are involved in. If protecting children from exposure is your true motivation for suppressing of pornography, then you need to explain why you don’t support such other extreme measures to protect children from exposure to equally dangerous things.
There are all kinds of pornography that leave me totally cold: people being tied up, tortured, wrapped in rubber, wearing high heels, wearing makeup, etc. If I am accidentally exposed, I may feel a mild attack of nausea, but I am not suddenly warped for life. I doubt the average child would any different. They would just go Yuch; There is no need for measures any more extreme than for storing firearms to protect children from pornography. Though I personally find most classes of pornography quite disgusting, intellectually I understand that, for some other people, that may be the only thing that interests them sexually. So long as they don’t harm anyone and so long as they don’t push these things on me, I think it is none of my business what sorts of pictures they look at. It would be outrageous arrogance to ask them to stop looking what they like most just because it turns my stomach. I’m not the one looking.
I know you’ve made a point that the production of child pornography doesn’t have to involve a real child. With the advent of digital photography, an otherwise innocent picture of a child might be digitally manipulated to satisfy the desires of a molester without actually harming the child. Or the child, herself, might be entirely computer generated. The same can be said for rubber; children (like those awful inflatable; women).
It might help if you understood that I too find this all quite disgusting. It is just that I would prefer to see a rubber child molested than a real one. I would prefer pictures to be created from the fevered imagination rather than by forcing real children to pose in sexual situations. Even with the extreme social stigma there is still an enormous child pornography industry. I think it foolish to imagine we can legislate it way. What we might be able to do is substitute artificial for real children so that no actual children are harmed in its production. It is sort of like giving methadone to heroin addicts.
In fact, it has sometimes been suggested (by you and others) that legalizing such artificial; child pornography might save the lives of children who would otherwise fall victim to molesters. Believe it or not, I used to be an advocate of this logic — until I went to college and read about an experiment that took place in either the late 1950’s or early ’60s (before I was born, actually).
A group of psychologists felt that rapists in prison should be allowed to have pornography for rehabilitative purposes. If a man wants to beat up a woman and can be satisfied looking at pornography,; they said, that’s a good thing.; They finally convinced three prisons across the U.S. to let them stage an experiment involving incarcerated rapists. The psychologists first asked the prisoners a battery of questions pertaining to their urges. Their anonymous answers indicated that many of them still had strong desires to attack women. Pornography was then made available to the rapists. I can’t recall how long the experiment lasted, but when it ended, they asked the same prisoners about their urges. An astounding majority of them — upwards of 75% — said their desire to violate women had actually increased. Some of them even said that the pornography served as a constant reminder of all the potential victims who were just waiting to be assaulted; outside. Shocking.
The Danes performed a large scale social experiment some years ago of allowing just about anything in pornography to be sold openly. Sex crimes dropped and pornography sales, after an initial boom, dropped. Further, you act as if you had some sort of control over how much pornography people read. You don’t, unless you run a prison. All we might be able to do is shape how it is created. In any case, using artificial pornography clearly cuts down the number of real children harmed in its production.
Of course, that doesn’t mean pornography will turn a law abiding citizen into a sex fiend (remember the innocent, lonely man in my Playboy; example above). But it does suggest that making child pornography available won’t help — and might even hurt.
Roedy, I don’t know what the answer might be. If sex offenders can’t be changed; — as some psychologists have recently begun to suggest might be the case — I would be afraid to give them something that might make them suffer even more and become an even worse threat to innocent children.
From what I have read, these things tend to be burned in, much like a duck imprinting, in males. They are almost impossible to change. Here is where I differ from nearly everyone. It is just a fluke when someone imprints on an inappropriate sexual object. It is no reason to punish the person, to try to make his life miserable. It is merely reason to prevent them from harming others. I guess I’m sensitised on this because I’m imprinted on males. Being homosexual used to be just about as much of a disgrace as being a child molester is now.
I once had the opportunity to ask the founder of one of the biggest and most powerful corporations in America how he avoided corruption. He said, simply, I never make a decision I wouldn’t want to explain on national TV.; Likewise, I wouldn’t want to explain to the parents of a molested child why I was in favor of legalizing child pornography.
Imagine me interviewing you on national TV. I say, “I understand, Miss Aaron, that you had a choice:
The rubber one disgusted you more. Please explain your choice to this child’s mother. Or are you so naïve you thought you could talk this man into giving up all sexual activity whatsoever?”;
Once again, I’m sorry for saying the things I did earlier. Please feel free to write to me anytime. You may now go ahead and rake me over the coals about everything I’ve said in this message, just like you always do. :)
(By the way, since my last visit to your site, you’ve added some rather shocking stuff. I can understand the need to instruct everyone about safe sex — but do you have to include those graphic photos? I mean, like, YUCH!)
The photos are actually pretty tame considering the intended audience. I talk a bit about how prudery kills when it comes to HIV. That is part of the reason I pushed the envelope a bit. You won’t find as much practical information about HIV or condoms anywhere else on the net.
Concerning rubber children;: Please don’t be offended by the question, would you be in favor of allowing the open sale of gay dolls; or black dolls; or Hispanic dolls; that the KKK (Klu Klux Klan) and other hate groups could beat up and lynch at their rallies? I would hate to think that a gang of men had a realistic, anatomically correct, full-sized (4’ 11”) ;Abby Aaron Doll; that they rape; and sodomize; every night! Why, I’d be afraid to ever leave my house! And I’d certainly file suit to have the production of such rubber Abbys; halted on the grounds that they were a direct threat to my safety and security.
This reminds me of a game my sister and I used to play as children. One would ask the other ever more horrible choices e.g. Which you would rather do, eat a Jap orange box full of poo every day for the rest of your life, or get an injection every day for the rest of your life.; Neither is particularly appetising, but logically if I can stop some real child from being raped by sacrificing a rubber one, that is what I must do. I would sooner someone beat up a rubber dummy representing a gay person than beat me up. I once purchased a baseball bat and demolished a log (not rubber, but the same principle applies). I pretended it was one of my ex employees who had embezzled my life savings to spend on alcohol. I’m sure he too preferred me to take my anger out on the log than him. Keep in mind nobody will ask you to pose for a rubber doll. You just threw that is as a red herring.
It sounds like a sick joke, but I was recently shown a website which glorifies burning naked women at the stake! It was filled with pictures of nude damsels being roasted alive, sometimes on a spit! At the end of this site, there was guest book; filled with lists of movie stars they’d like to strip and burn and ;want ads; from men looking for women who wouldn’t mind being so barbecued! Sure, they were seeking willing participants, but my point is that they weren’t satisfied just looking at the pictures. Child molesters bored with kiddie porn; can’t advertise for willing children; — there’s no such thing.
Not so. There are willing children, though I am not proposing they should be handed over to the child molesters! I know this is going to freak everyone out, but as a child I was very sexually active. Mostly I seduced all the neighbourhood children my own age of both sexes. I tried to seduce older boys, but was generally not successful. I probably would have happily seduced some adults had I been able to. Of course, had I succeed and if we had been found out, there would have been hell to pay and I would have been permanently traumatised, terrified to have any form of sex ever again. If we had been found out and someone wise handled the case, they would have saved me severe trauma while still convicting the adult. Most people tend to treat all sex crimes as equally grave. Ones involving coercing children I consider much more serious. They are on a par with murder.
I had a female friend who was sexually abused by her father as a child. There was no force involved. As an adult she angrily confronted her father and went through months of weeping and wailing about how her life was ruined. I asked her a question, Did you cry?; She said No;, she mildly enjoyed it. I pointed out that at the time the incident was less traumatic than a skinned knee. The problem came later when she learned about the social significance of the event, after she learned it was taboo. In helping children or adult children deal with these events, we need to minimise their guilt and minimise the cosmic importance of what happened to them. How you deal with the adult is a completely different matter. I suspect we unwittingly harm children after such an incident even more than the molester harmed them.
So they are left to roam the streets. Sure, some of them won’t, but I’m concerned about those who will.
Imagine you were a paedophile. You woke up one morning and men left you cold. Somehow the only thing that made your heart flutter were ten year olds. You would be aware that this was highly frowned on by your society. You would try anything to change. You would try anything to avoid acting out your feelings and getting in trouble with the law. You could try two approaches:
Which approach should we be encouraging paedophiles to follow?
Thanks again for giving the opportunity to make my case. I’ll write again someday soon, but I think I need to step aside now and see what some of your other visitors have to say about it.
 |
This page is posted |
http://mindprod.com/feedback/porn/pornchildmolester.html |
Optional Replicator mirror
|
J:\mindprod\feedback\porn\pornchildmolester.html | |
 |
Please read the feedback from other visitors,
or send your own feedback about the site. Contact Roedy. Please feel free to link to this page without explicit permission. | |
| Canadian
Mind
Products
IP:[65.110.21.43] Your face IP:[3.144.90.236] |
| |
| Feedback |
You are visitor number | |