Why ISP's 'Stand' Against Child Porn Is Actually Not A Stand Against Child Porn
from the let's-try-this-again,-shall-we? dept
Following NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's success in getting ISPs to turn off Usenet access and pretend it was a victory against child porn, a bunch of cable providers under the umbrella of the NCTA have announced an agreement with 45 attorneys general, claiming that they, too, are taking a "stand against child porn." This "stand" is the same as what Cuomo pressured ISPs to do: officially it's to block any newsgroup or website that is "known to host child pornography." Taking a stand against child pornography would be a good thing -- but this is not actually a stand against child pornography. This is trying to sweep a problem under the rug so that some politicians and some companies can get some good headlines.Taking a stand against child porn wouldn't be overly aggressively blocking access to internet destinations that may or may not have porn (and there's no review over the list to make sure that they're actually objectionable). Taking a stand against child porn would be hunting down those responsible for the child porn and making sure that they're dealt with appropriately. Blocking access to some websites doesn't solve the problem. Those who still produce and make use of child porn will still get it from other sources -- but it will be more underground, making it more difficult for authorities to track down. Also, this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it's ok for them to block "objectionable" content where they get to define what's objectionable without any review. For those folks who support network neutrality, this is highly questionable, because it's clearly going against the basic principles of network neutrality -- but in a way no one will protest because they don't want to be seen as siding with child pornographers. But the truth is this "stand" against child pornography won't do anything to stop child pornographers other than making them harder to track down -- and it sends these ISPs down the slippery slope of getting to decide what they think is objectionable content that should be blocked.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andrew cuomo, attorney general, blocking, child porn, isps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Usenet is not the problem
I have been involved in Usenet for 10 years, and have at times decoded the entire newsfeed, including all of the alt.pictures.erotica groups. There is no child porn there. Even on the newsgroups that supposedly feature it, there is a very small amount, but most is just ads for porn sites and random legal porn that people are cross-posting.
In truth, Usenet is one of the worst places to put illegal images. There is zero privacy, there is no private clubs where you can make sure your illegal activities are viewed by only a few. And there is little anonymity, because almost all ISPs keep logs of Usenet posting.
One wonders if the anti-piracy people are really behind this somehow. Piracy, unlike child pornography, is rampant on Usenet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Child pornographers
I do not understand what these people can be thinking or feeling, so I can't say what will happen if the material is suppressed but we should learn from the other good intentioned actions that have had unanticipated negative consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Great
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
have you seen multichannel? they're out of touch with reality too
Really, comments that contain terms common in spam? Does that mean the entire english vocabulary? I'd send them a message but who knows, I'm sure the people at multichannel don't listen to their viewers anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Supression is not the key
ISP's willing supress UseNet because it consumes huge amount of bandwidth and hardware resources, they have no intentions of trying to prevent child porn or the abuse of kids, they latch onto the excuse as a way of justifying what they are all already trying to do in the first place.
The truth is I would rather ISPs remain nuetral and simply cooperate with Law Enforcement rather than try to get involved in the prevention. ISP's may be able to block the content but it does little to prevent the content from being created or distributed. As someone said in a previous comment, there is little of this content openly being distributed and the content that is openly distributed is more likely to be distributed unknowingly.
Having that content out in the open gives law enforcement a starting point for tracing it to it's source. Supressing it only makes it more difficult for law enforcment to do their jobs.
I emailed the child protective group that suied yahoo a few years ago pointing out the flaw in their actions and their response was that by stopping yahoo from hosting chat groups they were actually protecting the kids. My arguement then and now is that all they accomplished was shutting down a resource for lawenforcement, they did not protect a single child only made it harder for law enforcement to catch the perpetrators which only protected the preditors and exposed more children to being preyed apon.
This action by these ISP's accomplishes the exact same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Less standing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The easy solution
As usual, it's "security theater": do something simple that can make a good story, but doesn't do anything to solve the actual problem.
As Mike (and others) have said: if "child porn" is such a big issue as politicians are saying, why don't they go after the creators and arrest them? Or are the politicians basically admitting that the "problem" comes from outside of the US, where they can't prosecute people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The easy solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But think of the children!!!
The group in question not only takes away a valid tool, but also has no accountability to any oversight comittee. The FBI and police have to follow certain rules and regulations while tracking these sites/people to properly get enough evidence to put them away. This "think of the children" group just surfs for child porn on the internet (which they are committing an illegal act BTW) and then sends the information to the ISPs to remove the content. WHY NOT SEND IT TO THE COPS INSTEAD!!! Let the proper authorities take care of this and leave ISPs out of it. If the group wants to help, let them but only with proper law enforcement supervision.
By removing these sites, this group is driving these perverted scum bags further underground, where they are less likely to be found. How bout you think of the children now???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Child pornographers
Now I'm saying what we need to do. We need to stop banning legitimate tools just because they could potentially be used for possibly illegal action. We need to start using the tools to track down the people that are actually doing these illegal things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's outlaw cameras
Dumbasses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The easy solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's outlaw cameras
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But think of the children!!!
The great example of this is the "To Catch A Predator" series. The show does nothing of the sort, of course. They claim to catch predatory pedophiles, but is actually involved in catching ephobophiles (adults attracted to very young but sexually mature girls) rather than pedophiles (adults attracted to pre-pubescent children). They do this by setting up a fantasy situation that bears no relation to real life. However, they look like they're doing "something" and nobody wants to speak out in favour of the guys they catch.
However, it does more harm than good. The real pedophiles don't go trolling for dates with 14 year olds in chat rooms, they prey on much younger, much more vulnerable children. Sexual abuse and child porn is much more likely to come from a family friend or family member than a stranger. The show, however, hypes the myth that the danger is external, making the general public much more paranoid about an almost non-existent threat (witness the attacks on guys with their own kids) while doing nothing to attack the real threat. But it gets good ratings...
...and so it goes. There are serious problems in society that need to be addressed so we can catch the producers of child pornography. This isn't the way to do it. Pedophiles existed long before the general public had ever heard the word, let alone the internet. As you mentioned, Matt, we should keep all of these channels open to everyone then use the sites to track down the perpetrators. These moves make such real action more difficult, but eventually they'll find another scapegoat. hopefully.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
Maybe the government should just poke everyone's eyes out. That should at least stop the viewing of child porn. But then they'll have to cut off our ears, too, because then people will just start verbally describing child porn.
Just the typical grandstanding bullshit from politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
The only way to "cure" them is to put them into the ground. I used to live next door to a "reformed and cured" child molester. He had sex with a 15 year old and did some jail time. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt since he had gone through all the classes and registered. Not one month after he got out he had raped his 10 year old niece. When asked why he did it? He replied that he was horny and that she was available.
Tell me how you cure that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How about
Pedophilia is strong/intense sexual attraction to prepubescent children where as Ephebophilia is attraction to post-pubescent teenagers, Ie 15/16/17.
Tapping your age-of-consent girlfriend is one thing. Doing her little sister who hasn't even lived a decade yet is quite another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
As things stand now, no one knows the why of it, and therefore you cannot treat it. Just like people aren't sure why some people are gay. Similar treatment programs to 'rehabilitate' homosexuals have a 90% failure rate and a 60% suicide rate for the same reasons, we just don't yet know how to properly treat/cure it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
Research needs to be done to find out if real "cures" can be found for pedophiles, but you certainly can't use the fact that it's not worked so far as a reason not to try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
Child rape isn't about the sex. It's about the total control and authority the rapist has -- how the heck can a 10 year old stand up to a grown man?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*AA influence?
Then there are the other groups that could also take advantage of this move.
Because porn could be viewed by minors, I imagine someone like the family research council would love to level their guns at ISPs. It only goes downhill from there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Common carrier status
So, think of the children. When they grow up the Internet may have become two networks. One will be the shopping channel, and the other an illegal encrypted net offering copies of Linux to hackers who bypass the security on their PCs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lets compare the war on drugs
We know from the war on drugs how useless it is to go after the consumers and ignore the creators.
40 years later the war on drugs is still a massive cash sink of taxpayer money, and illegal drugs are still a multibillion dollar industry. This demonstrates how well that approach works.
Fuck the news groups, BT, forums, chat rooms, none of it is important. If we want to make any progress at all you need to go after the real criminals, the ones abusing real children. We need to find and shut down the producers of child porn, the adults that appear in it. The ones involved in the crimes that have real victims.
Going after the prevents who hide their porn stash in their basement doesn't solve the problem and it never will. We need to drop the emotional reactions and go after the true scum. The ones actually hurting children, find the man with the video camera, hes the bastard I want behind bars, I could care less about the guy jerking off in his basement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's outlaw cameras
Normally, I take issue with "deviant" acts (homosexuality, sadomasochistic sex, etc.) needing to be treated or "cured". I begrudgingly am willing to make an exception for child rapists (not the entire "pedophile" class) due to the fact that another human being is harmed if they are not dealt with.
The problem of child rapists stems from two sources.
1) The sexual desire for young girls and/or boys. This, by itself, is not a problem. Many people have this and aren't willing to admit it. Getting sexually excited seeing a young person naked, even when it's your own kids, is perfectly normal.
2) The second key factor is found in many criminals, politicians, heads of corporations, heads of religious institutions and many walks of life. It is the sociopathic disregard for harm being inflicted on another human being.
Everyone focuses on the first item. Usually ignoring the second. Even most treatment tries to treat the "sexually deviant" qualities rather then what turned them from being a voyeur to a criminal.
I'm going to stop here because I could likely write another 20 pages on the subject before I got off my soap box.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
perhaps someone whould enroll hackers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, there is, just not in the groups you'd expect (as you noted). Go to http://www.binsearch.info, set it to search the "other" groups, set the date to 200 days and put in the search term "pthc" which stands for "Pre-Teen Hard Core.
As for child porn, I personally don't believe that all of it is as evil as most people claim. If it features very young children, or kids who are obviously forced to participate, then yes it should be stopped. However if the kids are a little older and are willingly participating, then I'm not so sure that it's blatantly wrong.
Pretty much every study ever done on the effects of kids and sex has been done on kids who were molested (actually forced by an adult) or who had adults tell them that what they did was wrong. Children by themselves really have no idea of what's considered "right" and "wrong", they only know what they're taught.
True story; My mother used to babysit a friend's toddler. One day she caught him playing with his penis. He didn't have any idea that he wasn't supposed to be doing that. Of course, following today's line of thinking, she lectured him about not touching himself and how it was "dirty". Naturally he grew up being ashamed of the idea of masturbation.
Contrary to what politicians, church groups, family groups and practically everyone else who's considered "normal", would have you believe there are children who will happily engage in sexual activity with an adult. If they're never told otherwise, they don't feel any shame or guilt over it. That said, I'm not sure that letting adults talk kids into having sex is the best idea, but on the other hand, I don't think it justifies a full-scale witchhunt either.
From what I've read, child porn didn't even used to be illegal until new laws were passed in the early 1980s or so. If it was legal to own back then, wouldn't there have been way more "abuse" going on then, since there were no laws against it, than now when it's completely illegal? Why is it suddenly a world-wide epidemic?
Before anyone accuses me of being a pedophile (which I'm sure someone will), allow me to state that I have never done anything with anyone under the legal age, that could be considered "inappropriate", nor do I have any child pornography of any type in my home. I simply have an open mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree, ISPs are using this for PR reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But think of the children!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't tip off the politicians
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perspective
Damage done to criminal politicians by free internet = almost certain death.
Issue which can drive almost any voter to fevered insanity: Their childrens' safety
Do I need to explain further?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Personally, I like the idea of banning kids. Great thought. Most of humanity shouldn't be allowed to have them anyhow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Most AG's Are Morons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
OK, so. Usually, child porn involves the exploitation of a child. That's bad. But if they're doing "pure CG" there's no longer a child being exploited, right? So... I fail to see the actual harm here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Look at Japan!
The theory goes like this: you give someone an outlet for their odd or inappropriate (or illegal) sexual urges, and they can "relieve" those urges themselves. Don't believe it? It appears to work fairly well over there, whereas here in America we continue to panic over the nonexistent "sex predator epidemic" and keep those prisons nice and full.
For all the people out there who think possessing kiddie porn should be illegal, for whatever reason, I ask you this simple question: If you could choose to either hand a pedophile some kiddie porn material to fap to, or your own child to abuse, which would you choose? Human nature is to seek what we desire until we get it.
I won't even go into why possession is a victimless crime; there are all kinds of red herring arguments to the contrary such as "by having it you create a market for it!" that ignore a lot of details, and I don't feel like covering it all.
(Somehow, if we "steal" music on a P2P network, we're destroying the music market, yet if we "steal" child porn the same way, that CREATES the market? I know that prosecutors and parents can be morons, but give me a fucking break already!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Let's outlaw cameras
Your metaphor of the guns, bats, EtC, was basically right on target and then youwent off on a tangent. There is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that pedofilia is a disease. More and more competent doctors and psychiatrists see most seual preferences as a life style choice, but some present concepts that suggest that pedofilia is a bad thing in every case without regard to the reality of the case. There are many cases where it is the CHILD that instigates the relationship. Is the child an adultophile? Some the child be locked up and have the key thrown away?
Child pornography is an outlet that has grown in prominence because of the continuingly more restrictive laws that prevent loving, sexual relationships between adults and children. Both have existed since the beginning of time. Remeber that Thomas Jeferson had Lucy as his lover and she was an 11 year old black slave. Should he have been locked up, separated from 'polite' society? Who would have written the doucment that guides the citizens of the US? But, like you say, take away the guns, and they will get bats. Take away the right to a loving relationship and they will turn to illict ones.
Keep in mind that the guy who killed Amber was not a 'child molester' he was a murderer. The guy who kill the Ramsey child was not a child rapist, he was a child murderer. I believe that every child has the right to be safe and secure fro abuse, but it is the child that draws the line about sex; in murder no victim has a choice. Separate the violent, perverts from the true pedophile and thn prosecute them. A true pedophile would never willingly inflict injury on a child. A murderer on the other hand doesn't give a damn about the victm in any way shape or form.
So, you are right, and you are wrong. But at least you have the guts to put your name to your statement. Never let anyone stop you from speaking out; it is you freedom of speech that so many have died to secure for you. When anyone tells you what you can read, the pictures or paintings that you can view, or who you can say 'I love you' to, then it is time to tear up that document that Thomas Jefferson wrote.
Keep commenting, I may not agree with everything you say, but I will die to protect your right to say it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Child pornography, who is making it illegal?
Is the act of having sex with a willing child condemned by the gods and men, or only by men?
I will present my views based on an in-depth study of the idea of the rectitude of adult-child sex. Keep in mind; I do not advocate the abuse of children in any way. I do not tolerate the beating of children (or women) as a form of punishment or as a part of sex; I do not condone the forcible rape of a child (or woman). Rape, is an act of violence, therefore a crime, but it is emphatically not sex. Having consensual sex is not a crime nor is it a sin. A view held by any right-thinking person. I am inserting here a copy of guidelines about adult-child loving or sexual relationships and a copy of the Declaration of Sexual rights. These are to be considered only a basic concept and must be expanded upon.
(* My added emphasis throughout)
The Dutch Society for Sexual Reform (NVSH) proposed the following four guidelines:
• Self-Determination: *Children must always have it in their own power to regulate their own sexuality, their relationships with others and their own lives.
• Initiative: Even in a later stage of the relationship, it is always the *children who make the choice to have sex.
• Freedom: At any moment within the relationship with an adult, *children must have the freedom to withdraw from the relationship.
• Openness: The *child should not have to carry unreasonable secrets
Declaration of sexual rights
The following sexual rights were adopted at the 14th World Congress of sexologists in Hong Kong 1999:
The right to sexual equality, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, *age, class, religion or handicap.
The right to sexual liberty, the full expression of sexual possibilities without force, exploitation, or abuse at *any age.
The right to sexual pleasure as a source of well-being.
The right to correct sexual information and education for all social categories *and ages.
The right to sexual self determination, free from violence, torture, mutilation.
The right to sexual privacy, free from false accusations, house searching or deprivation of property.
The right to reproductive choice with full access to proper contraception and abortion services.
The right to choose sexual partners, the right to divorce and cohabitation without marriage.
The right to sexual health and the availability of help to prevent and treat sexual dysfunctions.
Please note; I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic. I believe that there is a God, but that is the full extent of my religion. I am not a ‘church goer’ or a ‘bible thumper’; I am a man of simple beliefs, although I have intensively studied the scriptures of many religions.
1. Christianity and Judaism
a. Here are some interesting verses:
These are views of women based on biblical passages (Why do I not agree? I believe in the special nature of the girl child or in fact of any child.)
i. “The birth of a daughter is a loss” (Ecclesiastics 22:3). –WRONG: the birth of ANY child is a good thing.
ii. “A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy.” (Ecclesiastics 30:3) – ONLY IF HE ALSO EDUCATES HIS GIRL CHILDREN
iii. “Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame” (Ecclesiastics 42:11). – DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU CONSIDER SHAMEFULL ACTIVITY: Under modern law, just about anything a girl does can be considered shameful in one society or another.
iv. “Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye; do not be surprised if she disgraces you” (Ecclesiastics 26:10-11). – THIS IS SO WRONG IT DEFIES UNDERSTANDING: This was written to enforce the concept that women and children (especially girl children) are possessions and must live under the absolute control of the dominate male of the household.
v. “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35) IT IS GOOD ADVICE TO DISCUSS THINGS WITH YOUR SPOUSE. HOWEVER, TO FORBID THE EXPRESSING OF OPINION? BULLSHIT! Paul of Taurus wrote this verse in his first message to the Corinthians. One must keep in mind that this man was a misogynist. He hated women as independent individuals. He really thought that women were only good for one thing and one thing only and should be considered possessions, not individual people.
Jewish Rabbis made it an obligation for Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race and to produce sons, not daughters. Note that the New Testament seems to agree with this rather narrow vision of the worth of women. This is in direct contravention of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and the Old Testament writings of God’s acts.
b. The interpretation of modern era biblical scholars
i. Bathsheba, the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David's famous counselor, was only eight years and eight months of age when her son Solomon was born, while some maintain that she was not older than six (Sanh. 69b). The influence of the * evil tempter of humanity brought about the sinful relation of David and Bathsheba. Bathsheba was making her toilet on the roof of her house behind a screen of wickerwork, when Satan came in the disguise of a bird; David, shooting at it, struck the screen, splitting it; thus, Bathsheba was revealed in her beauty to David (ib. 107a). Bathsheba was providentially destined from the Creation to become in due time the legitimate wife of David; but this relation was immaturely precipitated, and thus he became Bathsheba's partner in sin (ib.).
Bathsheba is praised for her share in the successful effort to secure the succession to Solomon. Thus the verse in Ecclesiastes 4:9, “Two are better than one,” is applied to David and Bathsheba; while “the threefold cord” which shall not be quickly broken (ib. verse 12) is applied to the activity of Nathan the prophet, who joined in the effort (Eccl. R. iv. 9). For further details, see David in Rabbinical Literature.
(This incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.)
2. Hinduism
a. “Tasmat striyam jatam parasyanti ut pumamsam haranti” (Hence they reject a female child when born, and take up a male.) [Taitt. Samh. VI.5.10.3] [Muir I 26]
i. Female infanticide arose from the general Vedic attitude towards women. The large dowries prescribed by the Vedas meant that a girl was seen as a burden. The woman who gave birth to a daughter was ashamed, and much stigma attached to a woman who only gave birth to daughters. Hence, infanticide arose as a convenient way of getting rid of the “burden.” Aryan texts sanction this custom.
3. Child brides approved by Vedas in the Hindu religions
a. “A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner.”[Manu IX.94]
b. Child marriage of daughters 5-6 years old was common due to the custom of dowry and to avoid scandals [Nand 17] [Basham 167-8] [Yadav 70] [Altekar 16] [Banerjee 70].
4. Historical understanding of the Love of Children
a. If it comes to the choice of having young lovers, or following the admonitions of modern society, I choose the ancient ways. It was not until the growth of the ‘modern’ interpretation of the scriptures from the bible (mostly the change in religions structures after the revision of the bible at one of the points in history that began the distortions, The Nicene Council of 325 AD. - A formal creed summarizing Christian beliefs; first adopted in 325 and later expanded. See more below)
b. The Koran, The Hebrew Scriptures, and The Hindi religions allowed marriages of polygamous nature, and those where one or more of the partners was below the modern “legal” age of consent, versus the *natural age of consent. These concepts became sins under the modern interpretations of these highly edited texts. In most of the religious works of the world dating back some four or five thousand years (with minor exceptions), you can find the reports of marriages of older men to younger girls. Moreover, the act of marriage in those ancient texts was not reported as a marriage unless the marriage was consummated by the insertion of the male penis into the female vagina. This is what is mistakenly today, called Pedophilia.
c. Even the word Pedophilia (which is a made up word to impress the ignorant, by combining two separate Greek words) has been perverted by modern religions and legal authorities. The actual meaning going back to the ancient Greek of the two words is, “lover of children.”
i. Philia (φιλία philía), means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity.(See 4.d. below for the Arsitotilan interpretation of Philia.)
d. Aristotle argues that there are three kinds of philia, for “not everything is loved, but [only] the lovable, and this is either good or pleasant or useful” (1155b18–19). We can thus distinguish between:
i. Philia based on mutual advantage (love for what is useful).
ii. Philia based on mutual pleasure (love for what is pleasant).
iii. Philia based on mutual admiration (love for what is good).
e. These types are not mutually exclusive; they can overlap. The third kind will usually involve the other two kinds too, and is, he argues, the best of the three. Mutual admiration involves the nature of the other person, not simply how they affect you (being useful or fun to be with), and is also, therefore, more likely to last (“for if someone is no longer pleasant or useful, the other stops loving him” [1156a21–22]). Moreover, philia of the third kind is good in itself, whereas philia of the first two kinds, by themselves, might involve the mutual advantage between those involved in terrorism or the mutual pleasure of those involved in child abuse — relationships that are bad in themselves.
f. “Now it is possible for bad people as well [as good] to be friends to each other for pleasure or utility, for decent people to be friends to base people, and for someone with neither character to be a friend to someone with any character. Clearly, however, only good people can be friends to each other because of the other person himself; for bad people find no enjoyment in one another if they get no benefit.” (1157a18–21)
g. You will notice that in the Greek below the word child (παιδί) and the word for love (αγαπώ) appear together in the most positive terms. Moreover, that the word for child when coupled with the word for abuse (κακοποιώ) selects the most grievous form of the word.
i. παιδί = child
ii. αγαπώ του παιδιά = love of the children
iii. αγαπώ = love
iv. παιδί κακοποιώ = child a
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Child pornography, who is making it illegal?
Is the act of having sex with a willing child condemned by the gods and men, or only by men?
I will present my views based on an in-depth study of the idea of the rectitude of adult-child sex. Keep in mind; I do not advocate the abuse of children in any way. I do not tolerate the beating of children (or women) as a form of punishment or as a part of sex; I do not condone the forcible rape of a child (or woman). Rape, is an act of violence, therefore a crime, but it is emphatically not sex. Having consensual sex is not a crime nor is it a sin. A view held by any right-thinking person. I am inserting here a copy of guidelines about adult-child loving or sexual relationships and a copy of the Declaration of Sexual rights. These are to be considered only a basic concept and must be expanded upon.
(* My added emphasis throughout)
The Dutch Society for Sexual Reform (NVSH) proposed the following four guidelines:
• Self-Determination: *Children must always have it in their own power to regulate their own sexuality, their relationships with others and their own lives.
• Initiative: Even in a later stage of the relationship, it is always the *children who make the choice to have sex.
• Freedom: At any moment within the relationship with an adult, *children must have the freedom to withdraw from the relationship.
• Openness: The *child should not have to carry unreasonable secrets
Declaration of sexual rights
The following sexual rights were adopted at the 14th World Congress of sexologists in Hong Kong 1999:
The right to sexual equality, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, *age, class, religion or handicap.
The right to sexual liberty, the full expression of sexual possibilities without force, exploitation, or abuse at *any age.
The right to sexual pleasure as a source of well-being.
The right to correct sexual information and education for all social categories *and ages.
The right to sexual self determination, free from violence, torture, mutilation.
The right to sexual privacy, free from false accusations, house searching or deprivation of property.
The right to reproductive choice with full access to proper contraception and abortion services.
The right to choose sexual partners, the right to divorce and cohabitation without marriage.
The right to sexual health and the availability of help to prevent and treat sexual dysfunctions.
Please note; I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic. I believe that there is a God, but that is the full extent of my religion. I am not a ‘church goer’ or a ‘bible thumper’; I am a man of simple beliefs, although I have intensively studied the scriptures of many religions.
1. Christianity and Judaism
a. Here are some interesting verses:
These are views of women based on biblical passages (Why do I not agree? I believe in the special nature of the girl child or in fact of any child.)
i. “The birth of a daughter is a loss” (Ecclesiastics 22:3). –WRONG: the birth of ANY child is a good thing.
ii. “A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy.” (Ecclesiastics 30:3) – ONLY IF HE ALSO EDUCATES HIS GIRL CHILDREN
iii. “Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame” (Ecclesiastics 42:11). – DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU CONSIDER SHAMEFULL ACTIVITY: Under modern law, just about anything a girl does can be considered shameful in one society or another.
iv. “Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye; do not be surprised if she disgraces you” (Ecclesiastics 26:10-11). – THIS IS SO WRONG IT DEFIES UNDERSTANDING: This was written to enforce the concept that women and children (especially girl children) are possessions and must live under the absolute control of the dominate male of the household.
v. “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35) IT IS GOOD ADVICE TO DISCUSS THINGS WITH YOUR SPOUSE. HOWEVER, TO FORBID THE EXPRESSING OF OPINION? BULLSHIT! Paul of Taurus wrote this verse in his first message to the Corinthians. One must keep in mind that this man was a misogynist. He hated women as independent individuals. He really thought that women were only good for one thing and one thing only and should be considered possessions, not individual people.
Jewish Rabbis made it an obligation for Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race and to produce sons, not daughters. Note that the New Testament seems to agree with this rather narrow vision of the worth of women. This is in direct contravention of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and the Old Testament writings of God’s acts.
b. The interpretation of modern era biblical scholars
i. Bathsheba, the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David's famous counselor, was only eight years and eight months of age when her son Solomon was born, while some maintain that she was not older than six (Sanh. 69b). The influence of the * evil tempter of humanity brought about the sinful relation of David and Bathsheba. Bathsheba was making her toilet on the roof of her house behind a screen of wickerwork, when Satan came in the disguise of a bird; David, shooting at it, struck the screen, splitting it; thus, Bathsheba was revealed in her beauty to David (ib. 107a). Bathsheba was providentially destined from the Creation to become in due time the legitimate wife of David; but this relation was immaturely precipitated, and thus he became Bathsheba's partner in sin (ib.).
Bathsheba is praised for her share in the successful effort to secure the succession to Solomon. Thus the verse in Ecclesiastes 4:9, “Two are better than one,” is applied to David and Bathsheba; while “the threefold cord” which shall not be quickly broken (ib. verse 12) is applied to the activity of Nathan the prophet, who joined in the effort (Eccl. R. iv. 9). For further details, see David in Rabbinical Literature.
(This incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.)
2. Hinduism
a. “Tasmat striyam jatam parasyanti ut pumamsam haranti” (Hence they reject a female child when born, and take up a male.) [Taitt. Samh. VI.5.10.3] [Muir I 26]
i. Female infanticide arose from the general Vedic attitude towards women. The large dowries prescribed by the Vedas meant that a girl was seen as a burden. The woman who gave birth to a daughter was ashamed, and much stigma attached to a woman who only gave birth to daughters. Hence, infanticide arose as a convenient way of getting rid of the “burden.” Aryan texts sanction this custom.
3. Child brides approved by Vedas in the Hindu religions
a. “A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner.”[Manu IX.94]
b. Child marriage of daughters 5-6 years old was common due to the custom of dowry and to avoid scandals [Nand 17] [Basham 167-8] [Yadav 70] [Altekar 16] [Banerjee 70].
4. Historical understanding of the Love of Children
a. If it comes to the choice of having young lovers, or following the admonitions of modern society, I choose the ancient ways. It was not until the growth of the ‘modern’ interpretation of the scriptures from the bible (mostly the change in religions structures after the revision of the bible at one of the points in history that began the distortions, The Nicene Council of 325 AD. - A formal creed summarizing Christian beliefs; first adopted in 325 and later expanded. See more below)
b. The Koran, The Hebrew Scriptures, and The Hindi religions allowed marriages of polygamous nature, and those where one or more of the partners was below the modern “legal” age of consent, versus the *natural age of consent. These concepts became sins under the modern interpretations of these highly edited texts. In most of the religious works of the world dating back some four or five thousand years (with minor exceptions), you can find the reports of marriages of older men to younger girls. Moreover, the act of marriage in those ancient texts was not reported as a marriage unless the marriage was consummated by the insertion of the male penis into the female vagina. This is what is mistakenly today, called Pedophilia.
c. Even the word Pedophilia (which is a made up word to impress the ignorant, by combining two separate Greek words) has been perverted by modern religions and legal authorities. The actual meaning going back to the ancient Greek of the two words is, “lover of children.”
i. Philia (φιλία philía), means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity.(See 4.d. below for the Arsitotilan interpretation of Philia.)
d. Aristotle argues that there are three kinds of philia, for “not everything is loved, but [only] the lovable, and this is either good or pleasant or useful” (1155b18–19). We can thus distinguish between:
i. Philia based on mutual advantage (love for what is useful).
ii. Philia based on mutual pleasure (love for what is pleasant).
iii. Philia based on mutual admiration (love for what is good).
e. These types are not mutually exclusive; they can overlap. The third kind will usually involve the other two kinds too, and is, he argues, the best of the three. Mutual admiration involves the nature of the other person, not simply how they affect you (being useful or fun to be with), and is also, therefore, more likely to last (“for if someone is no longer pleasant or useful, the other stops loving him” [1156a21–22]). Moreover, philia of the third kind is good in itself, whereas philia of the first two kinds, by themselves, might involve the mutual advantage between those involved in terrorism or the mutual pleasure of those involved in child abuse — relationships that are bad in themselves.
f. “Now it is possible for bad people as well [as good] to be friends to each other for pleasure or utility, for decent people to be friends to base people, and for someone with neither character to be a friend to someone with any character. Clearly, however, only good people can be friends to each other because of the other person himself; for bad people find no enjoyment in one another if they get no benefit.” (1157a18–21)
g. You will notice that in the Greek below the word child (παιδί) and the word for love (αγαπώ) appear together in the most positive terms. Moreover, that the word for child when coupled with the word for abuse (κακοποιώ) selects the most grievous form of the word.
i. παιδί = child
ii. αγαπώ του παιδιά = love of the children
iii. αγαπώ = love
iv. παιδί κακοποιώ = child abuser
v. κακοποιώ, κακομεταχειρίζομαι, καταχρώμαι, εκμεταλλεύομαι = abuse
h. From a comparison of the Greek language use of the words we find that the modern interpretation of pedophilia (pedo = child philia = love) is, in every respect, wrong. (If this interpretation is correct, then the American people have a city that is dedicated to the incestuous act of sexually loving an oracle; Philadelphia.)
i. Modern interpretation = One who sexually abuses children
ii. Ancient (*true) interpretation = One who loves children
(It is a shame that the prudish, ungodly people who write laws are so stupid that they use words they do not understand.)
i. Even if we also misinterpret the second definition of “Philia based on mutual pleasure (love for what is pleasant)...” (4.d.ii above) and we follow their assumption that sex for a child of any age is unpleasent, we find that all of medical knowledge, physchological thinking, biblical writing and historical writing put the lie to their interpretation. They have formed these laws and opinions out of their own *PERSONAL and *PERVERTED predjudices (although they try to cite religious, medical or legal history as support).
Most people who believe that sex with children is a) morally wrong, b) illegal and c) harmfull to the child, when pressed, admit they have such fantasies themselves but feel shame because they were taught that this kind of loving is dirty or hateful.
Nowhere in any of the ancient historical, religious or legal texts does one find a condemnation of someone marrying and/or having sex with a child or woman of any age. But, in almost every instance, there is a great condemnation of those who would abuse a child. Inflicting harm on a child to see them suffer, thereby giving the person inflicting the harm pleasure, is wrong – THIS IS NOT PEDOPHILIA!! IT IS ABUSE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THE AGE OF THE VITICM IS NOT RELEVANT!!
Even as far back as the Code of Hammarabi (circa 1780BCE) we find strong condemnation of those who would torture someone for pleasure. And this was from a society that approved of child sacrifice in their religious rights!
The separation of harm from sex is essential in sexual activity at any age and especially with children.
When we view people labeled “Child molesters”, are we viewing them as people who inflict themselves on an unwilling child? If so, we need to understand that this is an act of violence; not sex or love. It is the same confusion that the modern world has with the crime of rape; it is interpreted as a ‘sex crime.’ Ask any victim and they will tell you that sex has little to do with the crime; it is an act of violation, of injury and of humiliation. The very naming of this despicable act as a sex crime is an affront to all of its victims.
Sex is the sharing of a very intimate part of ones body and self with another, not just the mating of the gential organs of reproduction. It is the joining of two people for the purpose of giving and receiving pleasure or the union of a man and woman in the attempt to produce a child. The calling of rape a ‘sex crime’ is a clear reflection of the view of modern society that sex is dirty and therefore should be treated as something unworthy of polite society. And since women are the accepted sex objects they are, by implication, dirty and therefore should be kept from polite society. This view is propagated by the churches of the modern era to maintain the status of women as chattel and therefore the property of man.
For many years women, young and old, were treated as chattel (and in some countries still are). Under these type of laws women, young or old, had NO RIGHT to refuse to have sex. Furthermore, many other rights that belong to all humankind were denied under this concept. Once married or bethrothed, or a child in a family, a female became the property of the male; to do with as he wished. Under these laws, all of the females in his house hold had no right of refusal. To correct this unfair treatment the pendulum of law swung to the extreme other end of reason. Men have no right to sex outside the confines of marriage as defined under the law (marriage is still a bondage on the woman), and since women were not able to think or hold opinions, still being chattel, they had no right to consent or refuse to any form of sex at any age.
Sufferage was a hard won battle for women, but they had to trade off their very right to make decisions at any age to achieve it; under this concept they are not legally allowed to make any decision about their own body, or anything else, until such time as they come of ‘legal’ age. Then they were married off and became the chattel of their husbands (That age varies from country to country, region to region. In some countries the women are still no more that possessions.)
5. Man’s perverted interpretation of God’s Acts.
If we investigate the progress from historical legal and religious acceptance of young wives and lovers to the modern condemnation of these things we find that the condemnations are influenced by acts of man; not Acts of God. The very things we are condemned for today were standard practice in most religions up to and even after the Nicene council of 325AD (man’s greatest attempt to pervert his religon to fit his own perverted outlook on life. Note: these were already very perverted men.) Keep in mind that if you are a Christian you must abide by the saying of Christ, “Suffer the little children to come unto me…Woe be unto anyone that harms a hair of their heads. It would be better that he have a millstone hung from his neck and cast into the sea, than to face the justice of my Father.” He understood that the love of a child could be on many levels; parent-child, friend-friend, man-woman, lover-lover, and man-wife. It is instinctive in a child to love. He also made it clear; the inflicting of harm on a child is the paramount evil. This is the same rabbi, prophet, or Son of God, call him what you will, that gave his blessing to the marriage in Cannan of a man and his 13 year old bride.
It is worthy to note that according to the “Oxford Dictionary Bible” commentary, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was 12 years old when she became impregnated. Since Christians believe that she was impregnated by the spirit of God, then under the current American and other countries laws; God is a child molesting pervert. (“Of course,” one United States District Attorney said, “the statute of limitations has expired so there can be no case.”)
From the Old Testament and the Talmud we read;
Said Rabbi Joseph, “Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levi has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B
Just as most honest pyschologists will tell you that the sexual awakening of a child begins the first time its mother or father washes its genitals; the child learns that this kind of touching produces pleasure. And many children will actively investigate their own sexuality while still in diapers. That is until the tendency is beaten or freightened out of them. “Shame on you! That is dirty. Keep your hands out of your dirty area.” As a parallel to this change in attitude toward sex, we can look to the changes in the churches of the modern era. Remember that MOST modern laws are based on what is refered to as ‘Christian Morals’.
A Brief History of Celibacy in the Catholic Church (most of the information below was taken directly from a Catholic site.)
(This helps to understand the change in attitude about marriage and sex. Never expect someone denied either or both to claim the goodness of either or both. Remember that the concept of celibacy, if one is guided by the bible, is NOT one of God’s commandments. His only direct remark on the act of procreation was given in Genesis, “Go forth, multiply and be fruitful.” God never intended that celibacy be a requirement of his priests – that was man’s idea.)
First Century
Peter, the first pope, and the apostles that Jesus chose were, for the most part, married men. The New Testament implies that women presided at Eucharistic meals in the early church.
Second and Third Century
Age of Gnosticism: light and spirit are good, darkness and material things are evil. A person cannot be married and be perfect. However, most priests were married.
In 385AD, Pope Siricius wrote the following.
Pope Siricius Letter in 385AD
13. Whoever, therefore, vows himself to the services of the Church from his infancy ought to be baptized before the years of puberty and attached to the ministry of readers. From the beginning of adolescence up to thirty years of age, he ought to be an acolyte and subdeacon, if he lives properly, content with only one wife whom he received as a virgin with a public benediction by a priest. Subsequently he should advance to the grade of deacon, if first, with continence leading the way, he proves himself worthy.
If he performs this ministry laudably for more than five years, he should attain the priesthood. From there, after a decade, he is able to reach the Episcopal office, provided that during these times the integrity of his life and faith was demonstrated.
14. But he who, having been called to the conversion of a better way of life already advanced in years, is in a hurry to move from the laity to the sacred militia, will not otherwise obtain the fruit of his desire unless when baptized he is attached at once to the rank of readers or exorcists, if, that is, it is clear that he had or has one wife and that he received her as a virgin. Two years after his initiation having elapsed, he can be made an acolyte and subdeacon for five more, and thus can be advanced to the diaconate, if during these times he was judged worthy. Then subsequently, with the passage of time, if election of the clergy and people designates him, he justly can obtain the priesthood and the episcopate.
Nothing there, that says they were differing from the instructions of Paul.
N.B. it is important to note that he must receive his wife as a ‘virgin’ to be in the priesthood. But, there is nothing said about his being a virgin. Nor is the age of the wife discussed.
Let’s read Pope Leo the Great in 440AD
Leo was made Pope in 440AD
III. The Apostolic Precept About the Marriage of the Clergy Based upon the Marriage of Christ with the Church of Which It is a Figure.
For as the Apostle says that among other rules for election he shall be ordained bishop who is known to have been or to be “the husband of one wife,” this command was always held so sacred that the same condition was understood as necessary to be observed even in the wife of the priest-elect: lest she should happen to have been married to another man before she entered into wedlock with him, even though he himself had had no other wife.
Who then would dare to allow this injury to be perpetrated upon so great a sacrament, seeing that this great and venerable mystery is not without the support of the statutes of God's law as well, whereby it is clearly laid down that a priest is to marry a virgin, and that she who is to be the wife of a priest is not to know another husband? For even then in the priests was prefigured the Spiritual marriage of Christ and His Church: so that since “the man is the head of the woman ,” the spouse of the Word may learn to know no other man but Christ, who did rightly choose her only, loves her only, and takes none but her into His alliance. If then even in the Old Testament this kind of marriage among priests is adhered to, how much more ought we who are placed under the grace of the Gospel to conform to the Apostle's precepts: so that though a man be found endowed with good character, and furnished with holy works, he may nevertheless in no wise ascend either to the grade of deacon, or the dignity of the presbytery, or to the highest rank of the bishopric, if it has been spread abroad either that he himself is not the husband of one wife, or that his wife is not the wife of one husband.
Pope Leo seems to confirm what Paul said.
Fourth Century
306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job.
325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry.
Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.
352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women and indeed ordination of women continued until late in the 14th century. Women are being ordained in modern times by many churches. The Roman Catholic Church still denies this equality to women.
385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.
Fifth Century
401-St. Augustine wrote, “Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of a man downwards as the caresses of a woman.”
Sixth Century
567-2nd Council of Tours: any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.
580-Pope Pelagius II: his policy was not to bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives or children.
590-604-Pope Gregory “the Great” said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself (meaning that sexual desire is intrinsically evil?).
Seventh Century
France: documents show that the majority of priests were married.
Eighth Century
St. Boniface reported to the pope that in Germany almost no bishop or priest was celibate.
Ninth Century
836-Council of Aix-la-Chapelle openly admitted that abortions and infanticide took place in convents and monasteries to cover up activities of uncelibate clerics.
St. Ulrich, a holy bishop, argued from scripture and common sense that the only way to purify the church from the worst excesses of celibacy was to permit priests to marry.
Eleventh Century
1045-Pope Benedict IX dispensed himself from celibacy and resigned in order to marry.
1074-Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: 'priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives.'
1095-Pope Urban II had priests' wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned.
Twelfth Century
1123-Pope Calistus II: First Lateran Council decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.
1139-Pope Innocent II: Second Lateran Council confirmed the previous council's decree.
Fourteenth Century
Bishop Pelagio complains that women are still ordained and hearing confessions.
Fifteenth Century
Transition; 50% of priests are married and accepted by the people.
Sixteenth Century
1545-63-Council of Trent states that celibacy and virginity are superior to marriage.
So, in conclusion, I postulate that the act of loving children, even when it involves sex, is approved of by almost every major religion in the world and, furthermore, laws that have been passed against these things were introduced by people who were mentally deficient or, being charitable, wrongly influenced by those who were. On the other hand, if they need an excuse for their stupidity, they can always say, “The Devil made me do it.”
Having sex with a *willing child is not a sin according to *any of the major religions. Nowhere in any scripture of the major religions of the world will one find this act condemned. Therefore, laws founded on the ‘immorality’ of the act are therefore, ill founded.
Many who write laws preventing the Adult-child love relationship mistakenly quote the passage in the New Testament where Jesus says, “Suffer the little children to come unto me…Woe be unto anyone that harms a hair of their heads. It would be better that he have a millstone hung from his neck and cast into the sea, than to face the justice of my Father.” They, through ignorance of scripture, place the loving of a child in the realm of harming a child. (See 5. above about the age of the mother of Jesus of the New Tesstament.) Yet, in many of these same cultures they violate the meaning of this passage by condoning the beating of children for infractions as petty as not carrying out the trash or not picking up their clothes after a bath. My advice to these perverts is; re-read the bible *AS WRITTEN and quit blaming your stupidity on the bible or God.
If we review the civil laws of the nations that contributed the most to modern society, The Persians, The Hebrews, The Egyptians, The Greeks and The Romans, we find that their civil laws had little in the way of restricting the age of consent. It is only the invention of modern man that has made willing sex between two consenting individuals of any age illegal, immoral, and dirty. God (regardless of your name for Him) must be really pissed at humankind for distorting His scriptures and history.
Remember, God called Adam (in the ancient Hebrew Adam means red clay) his son, and Eve (meaning, from man) his daughter. They were the children of His Creation. They were, therefore, both father and child, son and daughter, and brother and sister. One of the first things that he told them was to “multiply and be fruitful.” Oh my, God is a child abuser and encourager of child molestation and abuse… if we judge him by man’s laws. He not only told his children to have sex, he also approved of incest between father and daughter and between brother and sister. Yes, sir, we must immediately call God to stand trial. He must be charged with the most heinous of modern crimes: *LOVING HIS CHILDREN. In addition, according to man’s law, he must be confined as an evil being. Put into a prison where the other prisoners are encouraged to sexually abuse Him and even kill Him. (Gee, didn’t mankind do that once before to the Son of God?)
Yes, sir, I can see where God would really think well of what man has done with the beautiful things He gave to them. Sex is now dirty, children are property and have no right to self-determination, and that humankind is evil for the loving of children.
Please, someone breathe some sanity back into the world. Hey, God, are you listening?
==============================================================
Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the “sages of blessed memory... whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism” [131]:
[131] Ibid., vol.XXI.A-D, Tractate Bava Mesia, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990, p.ix-x.
When we read the Bible, we learn about Prophets marrying many wives, even hundreds of wives in some cases. Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament:
In Genesis 17:17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”
This is after he had fathered Ishmael on Hagar, the serving girl of his wife. There are many views on the age of Hagar when she was given to Abraham by his wife Sarah; some scholars place her age as great as forty and some as young as ten. It is really of no importance of her correct age, but her age in relation to Abraham who was one-hundred years of age. This would put Hagar in percentages a maximum of 40% of Abraham’s age, and at the youngest 10%. So, if we look at that ratio as being a guide of the acceptance of God for the ages of consent, we find that the man could look with sexual feelings on a female between 10 and 40% of his age and still be in God’s good graces.
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines. *The youngest wife was 6. The youngest concubine was 9.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Ages from 5 to 80.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines. Ages from 8 to 40.
Knowing that the Bible's Old Testament allowed for men to have sex with girls who were at the age of 3, it wouldn't surprise me that those Prophets who had 700 wives for instance, had many very young “teenage or younger” girls as their wives.
There are many sources for the materials that are use in this paper. I am purposely not putting in a bibliography (although I listed the source for some quotes); if you want to know the facts, you must do your own research. It is easy to discount someone else’s sources as not valid, it is much harder to discount them when you have found them yourself. If you look, you can find the references available in the public domain; some are given by the right-wingers, some by left-wingers, some by highly religious people, and some by atheists, some by agnostics, and some by the faithful of their beliefs. It is important to understand that I did not cull these references from a single source; I reached as widely as I could within the limits of the premise of the paper for my facts.
One last question; Are you on the side of God or man? Or on the side of the children?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
new file engine search!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: responses
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Child porn is a gateway...
The reason why child porn is bad is because it just lowers the "standard" of the age of the person involved. The legal movies with adult females portraying underage girls are just making it seem ok to have sex with a 17, 16, even a 15yr old and the age just keeps dropping. This in its self should make it illegal, the MAIN reason is because the real teenagers are not mature enough to make their own decisions. Since when have children known what they want? So if a child says yes to sex with a 20yr old man its ok? Now at least some perverts take into consideration the child's thought but it still does not make it right.Most girls don't even know what color to paint their nails or what to wear to school the next day. Most are still debating what to be when they grow up most still and watch cartoons. So INFLUENCING a child to say Yes to SEX will probably be easy and the child will regret it later. Not only is the child being used to satisfy someone's sick fantasy but the child is deprived of their own sexual growth. The reason why I say "sexual growth" is because when two humans have mutual sex for the first time it is an act of love and forever remembered. It represent the strength and intimacy of the relationship, after that it can be lust or more acts of love. Now when a child is influence of having sex for the first time the child will remember it not as an act of love but of "I did the nasty with ..." Now lets say Jane is 13yrd old and Joe(20) asks Jane to have sex with him and says yes. Now as soon as he starts penetrating Jane changes her mind because it hurts but Joe is already all fired up and doesn't stop because "Hey she's 13, I can hold her down until I satisfy myself just a couple more minutes of pain she'll get over it." What about that? No... child porn should be legal? Ok, what about those children that are still children? "Pre-puberty" children (as some put it) who still play with barbies and have no desire to have sex with uncle Bob or the post office man but are influence? Or what about the infants who get a bottle shoved in their mouths to keep them from crying while a grown man inserts his penis into her tiny vagina? Or worse yet the newborn babies who have brain damage, cracked skulls and destroyed organs because daddy pushed his hand to hard when he ejaculated as he tried to muffle the cries as he rape his own daughter? Oh yeah all of the reproductive organs on the little girls are of course destroyed. So if they live long enough to be a normal adult and they ever want to start a family they won’t be able to. So those of you that say that it should be legal because it keeps perverts satisfied is a bunch of bull because men try to imitate what they see in porn movies in their own bedrooms including “banging” a child. Trust me, men's sexual fantasies are inspired by porn. If you do not see legal child porn as a gateway, then my friend you need some help. Yes not all men are the same but because some men cannot keep it their pants they are all punished. And by punished I mean making child porn illegal. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against porn but keep children out of it for F@cks sakes. Men already have women to satisfy them. Women should be the ones complaining since most of them never orgasm, and men are the ones seeking "tighter" places. Ironic huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Child Pornography?
I have read your posting twice, and am very disturbed. I do not know who abused you, but it is time that you came to grips with it. Most of what you talked about in your posting has nothing to do with child pornography but has a lot to do with the abuse of girls.
You have displayed a deep antipathy toward men, from what I believe is your own victimization. Now, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are under the impression that brains are not provided to females until that have reached a specific age, and that prior to that sudden acquisition of thought power, they are incapable of making any decision by themselves. It seems fairly obvious that you have never taken a child of any age shopping, and that when you were taken as a child you were told what you wanted and what you would get. And I think that it is fairly obvious that if you expressed any reluctance to go along with the choices you were subjected to the wrath of the adult who controlled you. You were brought up to be a ‘proper young lady’. Interpreted as meaning a brainless Barbie doll until you reached that mystical age of majority.
There have been recorded cases of children giving birth as young as the age of five. But, the few documented cases were the result of a loving, and sometimes, life-long relationship. There is, indeed, a difference between a loving relationship and abuse. Rape is not a sex crime, it is a crime of violence. People who rape anyone are not committing an act of sex, they are committing an act of violence. It seems from your choice of phrasing that you were such a victim. Do not blame it on pornography, child or adult, it was the act of a vicious man who had absolutely no love for you or anyone else.
Child pornography – the phrase itself is a bit misleading. Pornography is defined as; creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. This is a rather crude definition but partially accurate. While Child pornography is defined as; the illegal use of children in pornographic pictures or films. The operative word here is illegal. If you do not want others to do something you make a law against it. That does not make the law right, it only makes the act illegal.
So long as a child is not forced into such activity and has the power to say ‘No.’ There should be no crime. But, when someone strikes out from their own pain, they sometimes strike at the nearest or easiest target. Pick your target better, face the man who has hurt you so badly. If you are fearful, take someone with you that you trust to provide a safety net. But, do not condemn something that you have little or no knowledge of.
That said, please, keep posting your comments. In this world everyone has a right to an opinion, and the right to speak it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This La Bash guy sounds like a real expert...
http://mobile.ghanaweb.com/wap/article.php?ID=168258
[ link to this | view in thread ]