Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
People don't choose to be pedophiles. We shouldn't hate them just for existing.
People choose to abuse children, and that should be strongly punished and I think the majority agrees with me on that.
But a non-offending pedophile is someone with a disability and should be treated as such.
I see where you are coming from, and have thought about this before when there was a group of people near where i live who were doing a sort of vigilante mob tracking down suspected pedophiles and terrorising them.
It just made me consider that they might be attacking people with a mental disorder who could/should be treated.
But just to speak to what you said, if they are non-offending, are you talking about the ones that dont physically assault children? Because the ones who are viewing and distributing csam are still harming children. Maybe not directly, but its like supply and demand, isn't it? People make it if people want it.
I think perhaps even the violent ones should be treated for a mental disorder. Maybe punsihed too, but if you draw parallels to other violent crime, many argue other criminals should be rehabilitated. Should this extend to pedophiles too?
The more i type, the more nuanced this becomes in my head. Perhaps that in and of itself is evidence that despite the obvious knee-jerk reaction to probably one of the most heinous things a person can do. Perhaps there is just more to this than anyone is brave enough to admit. (I say brave because anyone that sees you defending a pedophile automatically accuses you of being a pedophile, which is a fucking pathetic leap to make)
Having said all of that. If anyone ever did anything like that to my kids, i would rip their fucking heads off.
I intentionally left that vague because of the nuance you mentioned. I think most people agree that physical assault of a child is heinous. Consumption of CP is more of a difficult gray area.
What? No, consumption of it is NOT a grey area. Wtf?
Sure it is. A lot of people would agree that viewing drawings or AI generated CP is a victimless crime.
Or for another example, two under-18s taking nude pics and sending them to each other. Technically illegal, but morally? Probably not bad.
It isn't?
Sure, consumption means creating demand, but it's not directly harmful for the child. There is definitely much more wiggle room than when talking about straight up abuse or creating material.
I'd be inclined to agree that pedophiles should not get access to CSAM, and even just owning some should be an offense. I am open to discussion with professionals though, if they say it will be helpful and deliver a good argument, I'd be open to change my opinion. Which makes this a grey area IMO
If it's pornography of an unwilling subject, surely the distribution and consumption is harmful to the subject, as it's a violation of their privacy and integrity.
If someone had put secret cameras in your bedroom, would you be completely cool with them selling the pictures online?
What if you were abused, let's say threatened with a weapon and forced to undress in front of a camera, a traumatic experience for sure. Afterwards you learn that the film is being traded between people who get off on this stuff. Would that really not feel like a further violation?
Would you really be unaffected by the knowledge that for the rest of your life, at any time, there could be creeps getting off on your abuse?
Pedophilia is a paraphilia, and unlike sexuality, it can changed, but needs the willingness of the pedophile.
Is there research showing that? My impression was that short of chemical castration it's almost impossible to remove.