Slashdot Mirror
Domain: annabelleigh.net
Stories and comments across the archive that link to annabelleigh.net.
Comments · 8
-
Re:Closing loophole
"According the news article, the motivation for the law is close a loophole in the law whereby a paedophile manipulates a illegal photography in order to make it legal:
"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.""
That's already illegal. I explained the government's real motivations here -
Hi....
"I am, technically, a pedophile, because I have fantasies with little girls. However, it's underage characters from fiction works, and not real girls. I mean, I am not willing to touch a little girl or see photos of real girls being raped."
Are you attracted to real girls?
"However, I fear to be treated as someone that deals with real photos or actually abuses kids."
Sadly, you are correct. Most people hate paedophiles because of what we think, not because of what a minority do.
"I know many of you are already condemning me to crucifixion or worse."
People at Slashdot tend to avoid playing the role of the thought police, however there are a lot of stupid people in the Populist world, where your observation would probably be correct. We need to do something to change such attitudes.
"I fear to be prosecuted while really dangerous pedophiles are out there doing trips to sex paradises or having videos of a (real) little girl being raped."
Adults having sex with children is unacceptable in my opinion, as is producing, distributing, purchasing or requesting child pornography; however, people who are arrested for possessing child pornography are also victims of the thought police. Laws against the possession of child pornography do not protect children, as I will explain....
If any abuse occurs during the production of a pornographic image of a child, the abuse occurs before the image is viewed by an unassociated entity who possesses it. Whether or not "Bob" or "Alice" decides to view an image would not affect whether or not the image had been produced. As I explained in an article at my blog, decriminalising the possession of indecent images of children would likely cause the production of child pornography of children to fall, not increase:
The problem with applying the supply and demand theory to people who possess but don't purchase is that said people are not contributing to demand, because the supplier is not interested in producing images for people who are effectively "stealing" them by downloading them for free, for the same reasons that artists don't record music for people downloading it from file sharing networks. Supply and demand is an economic theory which applies to commercial sale, not products being used for free. Producers of any material do not want their material to be used freely, so an increased interest in freely available pornography would harm them. People would be less likely to purchase child pornography if viewing freely available child pornography were legalised, as viewing freely available child pornography would become the safe option. Production of child pornography would therefore fall because of a lack of demand, meaning that less children would be abused by child pornographers.
Please note: I am not suggesting that you should access or possess child pornography; people who are arrested for any child sex offence are usually subjected to extreme social and legal penalties.
"I know this might not be a really interesting post, but I needed to take that out, even as AC."
Have you found GirlChat yet?
"Oh, I am posting from a cibercafé and behind a proxy, so don't bother to track me down"
If you wish to preserve your anonymity, download - and configure your browser to use - Tor, and use your own connection.
"To put it in a simple question: Is it as bad to fantasize with underage girls (without breaking laws or harming girls) than consuming real material (raped girls) or abusing them?"
There is nothing wrong with fantasising about sex with children; you should simply ensure that you don't make your fantasies a reality. -
Re:I believe it
As a pedophile, I can confirm that the gay rights movement is being used as a template for our acceptance. Want a source, or a forum for honest debate? Try here: https://www.annabelleigh.net/
Afraid of getting busted (don't know why, the existence and usage of the forum is legal), use Tor tor.eff.org -
Re:More information of "Free Spirits"
-
For the trolls...
~sigh~
Let's see... first factual corrections first. The term "minor attracted individual" (here miswritten as 'minor attracted adult') does NOT mean "pedophiles" - which is exactly why it was adopted. While Orwell may be turning over in his grave over this "philanthrope" prevention in the horiffic misuse of greek, DISequivocation is sort of the opposite of deception.
The common term "pedophile," and the accurate term "paederotic," were noted to exclude and ignore large amounts of the community - both the babylovers, and people attracted to anything with breasts (or on the BL side, anything with a few whiskers).
The "political correctness of not wanting to offend queers" had NOTHING to do with "omg this will sound sweet and fluffy." The current theory is that anyone with human decency in their soul would have already exercised it, and thus it leans more towards the "bigger albatross" theory - an astounding number of people WILL fight under a flag of "infantfucker pride" even though themselves won't swing that way - just to offend a bigot.
Secondly, there's been some FASCINATING mythologization about, oh, "meeting to exchange kiddie pr0n" and "exchanging tips on how to molest kids" and the like.
This is a fucking joke.
A quick view of the bottom of any post screen on http://www.boychat.org/ or a review of the FAQ at http://www.annabelleigh.net/, will in fact include such tidbits as "Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors" (rule #6)... which would be a 1st-amendment violation in the US, I believe, if done outside any specific case, as well as "Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions" (rule #1) in light of Canada having the world's most stringent "written erotica" laws in the world... and, yes, rule #7, "Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18"
Usually, rule #7 was invoked on underage youth showing up with a "I'm looking for gay guys in the ____ area," as well it should have been... but I suppose that's off the topic.
For half a flippin' decade, the RMCP read the board every single day, without any action being taken. Before plagarizing whatever tabloid you read that morning, perhaps it would be prudent to investigate the actual topic at hand? It is, in fact, rather impossible to discuss "ways to seduce minors" under one's real name (as many posters are) on a public forum read by the police department (who has been VERY helpful in consulting on topics of legal compliance), and still be in operation.
Finally, a technical note : Verizon's holdings (Sprint/MCI) did not provide any form of hosting whatsoever; all hosting was done by the hosting company Epifora, which has no responsibility for the sites it hosts.
Sprint/MCI, a subsidiary of verizon, was simply the *backbone provider*, and in fact holds regional monopoly as the internet backbone for the area.
"Common carrier" status - often discussed in the germ -
Check for yourself
There is no simulated child pornography on the hosted sites, neither is there any solicitation of minors or counselling of illegal acts. They are even very strict in enforcing copyrights, just to be squeaky clean in every manner. The major sites are BoyChat and GirlChat. Check for yourself.
Yes, this is the essence of freedom of expression; namely the freedom to express what others vehemently disagree with. If we can't have controversial speech, we can have no freedom of expression. -
Re:Replying to Your 'three points'.
I would point out that Rind et al (1998) found that there was no significant damage caused in consensual adult-child sexual relationships. But, of course, most of those cases were probably unreported.
On the other hand, here is an interesting discussion of another study:
https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/187669.htm
Essentially, it is about this study:
Ney, Philip, Tak Fung, and Adele Wickett (1994), "The Worst Combinations of Child Abuse and Neglect," Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 705-714.
Although never specifically spelled out in the results, it is a curious fact that when considering every combination of physical abuse, physical neglect, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, and sexual abuse, in EVERY CASE when sexual abuse is added to one or more of the other types of abuse, the harmful effects are LESS than if sexual abuse is NOT present. Now this is not meant to suggest that if one is verbally abusive to a child one should then rape the child to mitigate the effect. Far more likely, "sexual abuse" was used to describe a lot of consensual adult-child sex, so much so that even when combined with genuine sexual abuse, the overall pattern was one of "sexual abuse" mitigating the effects of physical abuse, physical neglect, verbal abuse, and emotional neglect.
You have acted quite nobly, Random, and clearly had the girls' best interests at heart, but unfortunately your persecutors did not, and have ended up harming at least one of those girls, possibly quite severely. -
More info - and info for girl lovers
The other AC is correct. We simply ARE, and there are an awful lot of us. More girl lovers than boy lovers, though the boy lovers are better organized.
Note that in the original story, the man was NOT a pedophile. He didn't become interested in his step-daughter until she was physically entering womanhood. Such attraction is very common, and does not constitute pedophilia. It is also symptomatic of something else. Every study shows that the vast majority of child molesters are NOT pedophiles, and the vast majority of pedophiles are NOT child molesters.
But the common ideas about this subject are flawed top to bottom. Rind et al discovered that CONSENTUAL adult-child sex has consequences ranging from slightly negative to slightly positive - and there is reason to believe that most of the negativity comes not from the sex itself, but from growing up hearing the antisexual views of society, and internalizing them.
Looking at the issue historically, and in sex-positive cultures, there do not seem to be negative psychological effects from CONSENTUAL adult-child sexuality. Naturally, one has to consider STDs and physical harm, but considering that the vast majority of such contact between pedophiles and children has historically not involved penetration, this is not generally a problem.
However, we should distinguish this from the case with "situational offenders". Absurdly enough, the professionals consider "situational offenders" (like Roy in the article) less of a threat than child lovers, despite the fact that these situational offenders tend to have less empathy for children and generally became offenders because of a fundamental lack of self control.
Anyway, I encourage all of you to learn more about this subject. Here's a few links to start you on your way:
Encyclopedia links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al.
A paper on Antisexuality
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Library/Antisexual ity.html
Y'all might enjoy this - a theory that might explain the evolutionary origins of pedophilia - AND human intelligence.
http://www.davidbrin.com/neotenyarticle1.html
and a support forum - Girl Chat:
http://www.annabelleigh.net/
I'll go ahead and post the two Wikipedia articles here as replies to this message.
Baldur