"Art", Paedophilia and our Friends

[darkeyes]

In a questionnaire Toad asked...'If you discovered that a friend had “art” that may or may not be considered paedophilic porn what would you think? How/would it change your relationship with them? Would you remain friends? Would you turn them into the police?'

My answer to this question was...

"This is a lil more of a prob..me wud wonna kno 1stly wot they hav it for… sum things wich r considered by sum peeps paedophilic r nowt of the kind.. naked pics a kids on beaches..in the bath or shower.. getting undressed 2 get reddy for bed an the like. Pics peeps can an cant take a ther own kids is getting ridiculous..me dad an mum hav dozens a pics a me in such poses wen me wos yung..an me bro an sis..

Howeva..don think ther is ne excuse for sexually explicit pics a kids doin stuff wiv each otha or wiv an adult an the like… they betta hav a fukkin gud explanation for it an convince me (ie a work project for social services or a uni project on child abuse) or yea..me wud tell.. an convincin me wudn b an easy job… an if they did me wud expect it all got rid off in fronta me eyes… includin ne discs.. slitest recurrence then he or she wud b in deep poop.. "


The question, and the complete inadequacy of my reply pushed my mind into overdrive and have agonised for some days about just what my feelings are and how best to articulate them. My original words were thought out and written quickly and hastily..and it shows. It did get the mind working though, and it is quite an important question. Just what would I do? What should any of us do?

In part, I stand by my reply.. but it is not, cannot, must not be the whole sum of how I feel. There are issues here of friendship, loyalty, responsibility and the need to do all we can to protect our children from the predatory attentions of adult paedophiles and often protect them from themselves.

I love my friends, and those with whom I have the closest relationships, would go to the ends of the earth to protect and help them through difficult times. They, I know, would do precisely the same for me. However can this loyalty be quite so absolute if there actions are so abhorrent that I could feel neither able to defend them or ignore what they do?

The word "art" means different things to us all. What some call art others would laugh at. What is considered paedophilic or pornographic art is also a very personal and subjective issue to us all. Some feel that no child should be portrayed in any state of undress, wholly or partially. The row over Miley Cyrus for instance, in my opinion was laughable, for my family, and no doubt others among every sector of our society have equally "provocative" pictures of their children taken throughout their childhood.. yet it can be argued, and is, that such pictures can encourage the more base instincts in some human beings, and that such photographs of children are inappropriate in a civilised, responsible society. Equally there are many works of art throughout history, created by the greatest of artists who have painted, sculpted, photographed or filmed children in much more provocative poses than anything Miley Cyrus was criticised for doing. Therefore fundamentally, I dismiss such criticisms and think they are the perverted imaginings of a puritanical society which is frightened of itself and thinks naught but the worst of others. This is not to say there are not things to be frightened of.. it is to say we should believe in and trust ourselves and each other a lot more than we do while always being vigilant to the possibility that around us there are those who have much less innocent and far more sinister intentions towards our children..

Turning now to the sexually explicit "art", and in this essentially I mean film or photograph, although I do accept it could mean much more. As a child I was no innocent, and was sexually active from a young age and not always with my peers. I have no regrets, for it was who I was and what I wanted. Was I abused? I don't believe so. Were those adults with whom I had sex paedophiles? Thinking back, probably, at least in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of a sexually precocious young girl of 14 or 15. That is not how I saw them. At least they did not film or photograph me, at least not that I remember, and certainly not in a state of undress or in the performance of any sex act.. of that I can be absolutely certain. Yet we know that there are children who are abused, and are photographed or filmed in poses which are sexually provocative and worse.. performing the most graphic and explicit acts with each other and with adults. I am no puritan but I do draw the line and believe such “art” is an appalling abuse of a child.

There are those who question whether the retention of such material should be criminalised. Not me.. not for a minute, for all I am a relatively free spirited person with few hang ups, and have gone through my life enjoying myself intensely and immensely sexually. If I discovered that a friend, however close, collected or distributed such material I would be outraged, and those who are reluctant to inform on such friends I believe do almost as much harm as those who perpetrate and perpetuate this awful crime against our children. For by simply reviewing the friendship, and merely changing its closeness as some have stated they would do, and abrogating their responsibility to our children, they do nothing to help stop the practice of abuse which child pornography and its practitioners inflict upon children. By doing and saying nothing they help perpetuate this gross crime against those who we, as responsible adults, should do all in our power to protect from predatory and evil criminal paedophilic individuals and syndicates whose purposes are on the one hand to satisfy their lusts and/or on the other to make money on the back of a despicable practice.

We have a responsibility to our children first and foremost, and yet we have a responsibility to ourselves also, for we all know that there are those in the wider world who equate homosexuality and bisexuality with paedophilia when they are nothing of the kind. So to those who would say and do nothing I would say that you are not only irresponsible toward children, but to yourselves, for by doing so you will have contributed to the persistent myth that gays and bisexuals, men principally, are themselves paedophiles.. I have no doubt that among us there are indeed paedophiles, but that the vast majority of such people come from within the heterosexual community.. I believe that the evidence bears this out.. we damage our cause in the name of a misguided loyalty to one we may care for if we say and do nothing.. love and loyalty are wonderful things.. but not at all costs and without reservation, for their are times we must act in the greater good no matter how much we love and care..

[nothings5d]

Very well said and I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[Toad82]

Very well written.

I am glad that my question brought up such feelings and thoughts. Too many times I believe “we” come to “our” beliefs without really thinking about them. So many have an emotional response when one is not called for and have a non-emotional response when one is, that it is nice to see a well thought out reply that happens to be both.

When writing out this and the other surveys I hope to post soon, I was trying to write in a way that would get more of an answer than what the writer was thinking. I know with your post that I have.

RJ:lokai:

[Mr. Magick]

Very well put Fran I agree whole heartedly.

[darkeyes]

You know, I have been wondering what is going on in people's minds.. this is an important and I agree contentious subject and yet am disappointed in the lack of response. Is it that we are so uncomfortable with the issue that we feel unable to respond and articulate our feelings adequately? It is important and it is contentious and is a subject upon which many outside of the LGBT communities have very fixed ideas which are detrimental to us.. and here we have a remarkably deafening silence.. why is that I wonder? What do you think those who are not our friends will make of this...?

[12voltman59]

I agree totally Franny-----anyone who has in their possession, child pornography does deserve some sort of legal sanction---even if they just look at it--if they collect it from the various sources out there--they are encouraging a black market in one very sordid and sad marketplace--a marketplace of child and other hardcore pornography run by some of the world's most brutal crime organizations--largely people who were once members of the state security agencies of the former Soviet states, combined with longstanding crime families from those places that have in large measure---taken real if not de facto control of many of those states.

These organizations traffic in sexual slavery of children and women--and they are a very real threat to the national soverignty and safety of many nations--including our own----and these organized crime organizations make the "Mafia" at its heyday look like a bunch of altarboys.

http://www.russiajournal.com/node/5808

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/opdat/trafficking/traffic-n-persons.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/iccs/iccsviii.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=KzhEUE35pRcC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Russian+crime+organizations+and+child+pornograp hy&source=web&ots=kYHlojKMUO&sig=0_3IX-vMXufUTRAlme9GxUWsbOs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPR11,M1

http://www.icmec.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=2338

http://www.buffalonews.com/339/story/182863.html

This is just a partial listing of this dark subject!!!

With things like this---you do have to say---we humans might have our bright sides--but in far too many cases--we do let our "darker angels" reign supreme!!!

[Toad82]

You know, I have been wondering what is going on in people's minds.. this is an important and I agree contentious subject and yet am disappointed in the lack of response. Is it that we are so uncomfortable with the issue that we feel unable to respond and articulate our feelings adequately? It is important and it is contentious and is a subject upon which many outside of the LGBT communities have very fixed ideas which are detrimental to us.. and here we have a remarkably deafening silence.. why is that I wonder? What do you think those who are not our friends will make of this...?

I agree it is sad. I was hoping more people would post in this thread. Since I have been a member here I have had three threads deleted about almost the same subject. Maybe it at least is a good thing this one has not been deleted as well.

[rissababynta]

The main reason why I haven't responded yet is mainly because I don't know what to say. I said in the other thread how I felt, and didn't have a whole lot to say then. I feel that it is wrong and that I could never have a proper friendship with someone who was into it, but I wouldn't completely kick someone out of my life either. As a psychology student, I understand that everyone is different and that a person can not control the types of things that they find interestest in. It still doesn't make it ok, but I don't want to completely hate someone because of something that is out of their control as long as no one is phyically being harmed. However, the second that anyone was trying to do something with someone that would simply have to be the end of it for me when it comes to any form of friendship.

[orpheus_lost]

This is a hard subject to talk about for most because the general attitude is that however much you hate pedophiles, the next person to post will hate them more. Then there is generally a fun round of escalating punishments starting out with castration and moving into more draconian methods of deterrence from there. Of course there'll be arguments over recidivism rates and online predator lists and people will scream about not wanting those people near their children, etc...

With all that, it makes it difficult to have a real conversation about the problem. Any attempt to apply logic or a progressive philosophy get's you branded as an enabler or worse. And of course, the end result is hurt feelings, anger and resentment.

Now that I've said why it's not a good idea to talk about this stuff, I'll talk about it.

Here in the good ol' USofA, there's a real witch hunt on for pedophiles. We frighten out children with warnings of slavering predators lurking around every corner and we take any kind gesture by an adult as having an ulterior motive. We spend millions on PSAs warning parents to keep their kids off the Internet and have even made watching pedophiles in their habitat prime time viewing like some perverse televised National Geographic special.

After all this, the facts show that the vast majority of sexually abused children are molested by members of their own families - usually a parent.

Now, I've typed all this to say that I think we are working backassward when it comes to reducing the number of children who are molested. We focus on the extraneous while completely ignoring the one thing that could actually help - breaking the cycle of abuse that tends to run from generation to generation within families.

The problem with turning in someone who has pedophilic "art" is that the person in question will receive almost no substantial help in combating a very real psychological disorder. What generally happens is the person is put in prison where he/she is beaten by the other inmates for being a pervert, eventually released and placed on a predator's list. This list effectively keeps the person from ever returning to society, reinforcing the idea of being perverted and wrong. In that situation, there's little incentive not to fall into the role society expects.

Now, I'm not saying that someone found to have this stuff shouldn't be turned in, because they should and I would be the first to do it. The problem is that the system doesn't fix the problem, it merely takes it out of the cycle for a few years. After that, the problem is usually even worse. Unfortunately, this is not a popular point of view so there's no chance of any changes being made.

[Toad82]

[QUOTE=orpheus_lost;121325]With all that, it makes it difficult to have a real conversation about the problem. Any attempt to apply logic or a progressive philosophy get's you branded as an enabler or worse. And of course, the end result is hurt feelings, anger and resentment.QUOTE]

I agree with everything you wrote. And in my experience the above quote from your writing is 100% true. I buy a lot of books that span sexuality in one form or another. Recently I have been buying books on children & their sexuality. The people that have seen me with these book (We were NOT abused!, This Too Is Love, Could They All Have Been Wrong?, We Boys Together: Teenagers in Love Before Girl-Craziness) act as if they caught me in the act, instead of just reading up on the subject.

I don’t know, maybe I am wrong, but I get the sense that a lot of people just don’t like thinking of their kids having a sex life.

RJ:lokai:

[meteast chick]

Well said Fran.

I know in the US, places that develop or print film have an obligation to report anything they perceive as paedofelia. Tell me, what is your interpretation? Can you imagine how many scandals have been created by a mother snapping a pic of her kid playing in the tub or in the sprinklers? How many of us have taken a picture of our beautiful new babies clad in nothing but a swaddle of a blanket, a diaper, or nothing? I know I have because they were so innocent and I wanted to capture that forever. Only I printed them at home, afraid of the implications or eyebrows it might raise. I thought that quite sad, but even my boys, now a bit older, love them. Especially the one when my then 3 year old was potty training, on the big boy potty holding a Turtle magazine like he'd seen plenty of times before with his dad holding a different mag, and his then year and a half year old brother right next to him in the little potty, holding another magazine upside down, trying so hard to be just like his big brother. It's hilarious. I also own an artist's rendition of 2 boys, in swim trunks, at the beach, in my serene attempting-to-be-beachlike bathroom, that reminds me so much of the 2 greatest joys in my life, purchased when they were nothing but a dream.

I still look back fondly at the corny sans clothes pic my mom took of my older sister, older brother and I standing in the bathtub, all various colors from colored soap we had, me being the littlest right in the forefront in all my 4 year old glory. I was positioned very carefully covering the lower bits of my 6 year old brother and 8 year old sister. It wasn't sick in any meaning of the word, and apparently the people who developed it in the early 1980's didn't think so either, but times, they sure have changed.

I am saddened by 2 things. That there truly are plenty of wack jobs all over the world that would get off on a picture like that and regularly do, and of the poor innocent people that are persecuted and prosecuted for owning it no matter the reason.

Yes, I would want to know why someone was displaying 'art' or photography portraying scantily clad or naked children. My private pictures of my kids are where they belong...in their photo albums. If I saw something so very obviously pornographic, that's one thing, but when did we all of a sudden become each other's moral police?

Time to get off my high horse and on to more interesting things, like protecting my children from predators and narrow minded assholes alike.

love and kisses,
xoxoxoxoxoxox
meteast

[Sarasvati]

Art is certainly capable of depicting a naked child without sexualising the image. There are many renaissance works that accomplish this. But are there occasions when an artist should be entitled to do so?

Art is a vital tool in grappling with the inner complexities of the human condition. Subjects like homosexuality which were until recently utterly taboo could be covertly explored by artists, whether in painting, literature, poetry, theatre, music, etc.

The virtue of artistry is the ability to reflect our life condition. And a depiction that is not realistic is a particularly efficacious means of accomplishing this. Fairy tales have this quality. Psychology for all its advances falls far behind art in its capacity to understand humanity. It's the very irrationality of our true nature's that art can capture so much more effectively.

Art makes us react, negatively or positively. We may be oblivious to the impact of art on us, but artists do shape our understanding of the world in which we live. When an artist exposes our senses to a perception which is novel to us we recognise the impact.

It is only in recent decades that Western societies have become intolerant of the depravities of paedophilia and have sought to excise this aberration. It must have been a commonplace abuse across all cultures until now but this is because it was easier to hide and usually committed by a corrupt figure of authority (an uncle, brother, priest, landlord, schoolteacher, doctor, employer).

In our Western cultures. over roughly the past 250 years (perhaps Jean Jacque Rousseau was a prime mover), there has been a hunger for "understanding", a yearning to untangle our unique, individual characteristics from the stranglehold of tradition.

This is a tricky business, the snare of history has sharp teeth, and recognising your true inner nature and tearing it away from cultural entrapment can be very painful - and downright scary. Nor is it a simple business - we only ever establish a very marginal comprehension of our own selves.

I don't have the affliction of a child fetish, thank God. It is stunning to me that there are so many out there who do. And, of course, I utterly detest it. All my fetishes, thankfully, are for willing adults.

I could take no pleasure in duress or exploitation of the unwilling, the naive or the immature. Unbelievably millions of people across the globe can. We have plenty of evidence on the internet for this and in personal testimony.

But if we have no opportunity to "understand" that aberrant personality trait because we only condemn it then we will struggle to beat it.

I notice that loads of men seek in their partner a mother figure. They'll ogle the pretty girl on the street but not take her as their partner. They prefer a mother figure. This seems a strange trait to me too, though not immoral, and potentially vulgar. Yet this is commonplace and not subject to much scrutiny.

There is probably a Darwinian explanation for this. But those of us who operate in bisexuality or homosexuality do not easily find such an explanation. We, with the help of pederasts like Apollinaire (the poet who coined the term "surrealism"), are bucking the Darwinian trend. We, like Shakespeare, can believe that we can improve on nature - and that has been a key function of art.

And perhaps that justifies the use of art for generating compassion, even for paedophiles as well as their victims.

I do think it is right to castrate paedophiles and to keep them very closely monitored or detained. I also think it is importnt that we learn about them and try to understand them.

We won't solve the problem though. We can though try to understand our nature better.

[darkeyes]

Actually S there is a lot I can agree with in what you say. Most in fact. In the case of any punishment for any crime, from the most petty to the most heinous, we should try and understand why the perpetrators do what they do and learn accordingly as best we are able while attempting to rehabilitate each individual and prevent recidivism. That is why for instance, apart from the dubious morality of taking life in an act of societal vengeance, I am opposed to capital punishment.. I am not one for lowering myself to humanity’s basest, most brutal level and have myself classified as a murderer.. and of course there is, as has happened a million times throughout history accross the whole of the criminal and judicial spectrum..the little matter of getting it wrong and convicting the wrong person.. posthumous acqittals on appeal and free pardons hardly make up for the execution of the innocent.

So I find myself agreeing with you in the main, although as you would expect not entirely, for the little matter of castration does leave open a question or two.. firstly, I assume you mean chemical castration.. the other kind is a somewhat too final and begs a similar question to the execution of an innocent man (or woman.. or child for that matter).

However, there is of course the question of medication when a convicted paedophile is released after serving his sentence. Many people with other illnesses such as schizophrenics find their illness return if they miss their medication..indeed sometimes they feel so good they do not feel ill at all…and yet the illness returns quickly and by that time it becomes so much more difficult to control their symptoms often with tragic results. In the case of a convicted paedophile it is not impossible for them to be forced into having medication administered in law at an appointed place and time under strict supervision , but some will in the natural way of things push their luck, not necessarily out of badness, but by a false sense of well-being created by their “castration”and miss the appointed treatment, and by then of course it may be too late for some poor child, or children.

Do we lock them away forever and throw way the key? Many of the problems in our prisons are as a result of those who have no hope of ever having the hope of freedom restored, and so what have they to lose by creating mayhem in our jails? There is sufficient evidence that sentencing people to life without parole ever being on offer, is in fact counter-productive and not conducive to good order in our prisons. I am not saying that it should never happen..I am saying that we had better make sure that it is an appropriate punishment and that no alternative exists.

With regard to paedophiles, do we chemically castrate them while they are in prison? Would society ever learn enough about the causes when those sentenced have their urges suppressed by drugs and with those urges possibly the memories of those urges while beind analysed and studied while incarcerated?

So it is all a hugely complex, difficult and problematic issue. It is one for which there are easy answers.. but none very satisfactory. Yet I try and understand why paedophiles are as they are, and continue to believe that as a society, we have a duty to ourselves and our children to learn as much about the condition as we are able in order to have any serious opportunity to combat it any where near effectively. We have a duty to those people who are paedophiles, for whatever reason, as many, if not most in the normal way of things lead otherwise innocent and blameless lives… and so we must study and analyse each and every case as deeply as we can to get to the truth of the matter and so, in time properly protect our children from those who would prey upon them, and in turn prevent those who would be preyed upon, coming full circle and becoming the predator as happens in all too many instances as things are now.

I am a liberal when it comes to the penal code.. not because I think we should be soft on those who commit often the most appalling crimes, but because I do believe we should invest heavily on determining the true causes of crime and in the rehabilitation of offenders and make every effort to prevent them falling back into their bad old ways by offering them hope that they can and will live decent and worthwhile lives outside of prison. Certainly for some criminal conditions, as with paedophila, there will require an element of medical supervision and treatment and we should not baulk at that cost. It is much more cost effective to provide jobs and careers and when required medical assistance and supervision for people who have offended than to simply lock them up in perpetuity or for longs spells, since they will not only become taxpayers and contribute financially to our economies, but the hope provided for them of a better futureand the career they pursue will benefit our way of life enormously in ways which all too often society and those who take a hard line on punishment and crime ever seem to realise. But to do all this we require the will and wit to provide the conditions and resources where this can be achieved.

I realise that I have widened the scope of this contribution to more than those who collect “art” or art, and to more than those who are paedophilic but believe it to be worthwhile.. of course much is theory and certainly contentious. I am not so dogmatic as to say my views are the only ones that matter, but I am sufficiently so as to say it is worth considering.. and I do say that all the old judicial solutions for dealing with crime have been fund sorely wanting.

[Sarasvati]

However, there is of course the question of medication when a convicted paedophile is released after serving his sentence. Many people with other illnesses such as schizophrenics find their illness return if they miss their medication..indeed sometimes they feel so good they do not feel ill at all…and yet the illness returns quickly and by that time it becomes so much more difficult to control their symptoms often with tragic results.

It is the "medication" that causes "schizophrenia". There are some eminent psychoanalysts who have gone against the accepted wisdom and argued the same. Instead they have sought to "understand" people - but "understanding" can't be bottled and profited upon. Once the medication has got a patient then they are largely fucked and the dependency is set for life. Watch out for tardive dyskenesia!

Sorry felt the desire to make a point of this.

[darkeyes]

It is the "medication" that causes "schizophrenia". There are some eminent psychoanalysts who have gone against the accepted wisdom and argued the same. Instead they have sought to "understand" people - but "understanding" can't be bottled and profited upon. Once the medication has got a patient then they are largely fucked and the dependency is set for life. Watch out for tardive dyskenesia!

Sorry felt the desire to make a point of this.Too pat and simply wrong in most cases hun.. medication may exacerbate a condition after diagnosis if that diagnosis is correct but it is not the original cause.. if the diagnosis is wrong of course it may help create the condition together with any therapy but that in itself is a contentious claim to make..

I did say there are easy answers..and that they were quite inadequate.. so really there are no easy solutions...:(

[Sarasvati]

Too pat and simply wrong in most cases hun.. medication may exacerbate a condition after diagnosis if that diagnosis is correct but it is not the original cause.. if the diagnosis is wrong of course it may help create the condition together with any therapy but that in itself is a contentious claim to make..

I did say there are easy answers..and that they were quite inadequate.. so really there are no easy solutions...:(

Please could you tell me if a person can get something called "schizophrenia" and what it is.

I know we've shifted this conversation but I want to go this way for now.

[MissyMissy]

childhood pics of me and my gf in the tub to me is normal. but pics of me and that gf playing touchy feely together would be wrong. there is a difference to me. maybe some dont agree but one is of two choildren doing something that is an everyday thing..taking a bath. but the other is two children discovering themselves and a friends sexuality and private. but i dont think it matters to a pedophile if two kids innocently taking a bath together is "normal". i think even children in clothing just playing could possibly be "sexual" to one. i am not a pedophile so i am not sure..
as for schizophrenia. i know it may be genetic. more boys seem to grow into it in thier teens. but doing heavy drugs or other types of brain damage can bring it on. that there are many people with schizophrenia and you wouldnt even know it and they may sit right next to you at work and they may take medication. and to me emdication for anything you have a 50% chance of doing okay with it or a 50% of it turning out bad. no medication cures anything and no medication is 100% safe. i am very allergic to many medications but i know some medicines have helped others a lot. ever watch the tv commercials about some meds? all these nice things they can do for you then in a quicker lower voice all the side effects they may cause? like i said 50/50 deal for some others it may be 75/25 or 25/75. you take chances everyday in your life. but maybe read about your medications before taking them and ask a dr questions and ask him...if it was you would you take this?????

[Sarasvati]

i think even children in clothing just playing could possibly be "sexual" to one. i am not a pedophile so i am not sure..

Would you have to be a paedophile to make this observation?

[Sarasvati]

In a questionnaire Toad asked...'If you discovered that a friend had “art” that may or may not be considered paedophilic porn what would you think? How/would it change your relationship with them? Would you remain friends? Would you turn them into the police?'

Thought I ought to answer the original poser.

If the friend has paedophiliac "art" I could no longer befriend that person and would immediately report them to the police. Nevertheless, I might also want to converse with the person to try and understand them.

If the friend argues against my accusation of paedophilia, insisting that the "art" is not paedophiliac, I would have to make a judgement on the basis of the evidence and stand by my convictions.

I think it would be unlikely that "art" that appears paedophiliac is not so. It most likely is and I would be distrustful of the so-called friend.

Consenting adults could be employed to express the idea of innocence. The Book of Genesis employs adult figures for this purpose. Children are not required.

However is a consenting adult who portrays a sexualised infant in a dramatic play, for example, also guilty of paedophilia, even though no actual children are involved?

[darkeyes]

Please could you tell me if a person can get something called "schizophrenia" and what it is.

I know we've shifted this conversation but I want to go this way for now.Schizophrenia is a recognised yet often misunderstood mental condition which results in people being delusional or suffering hallucinations, both by vision and hearing. It is not a multiple or divided personality disorder which are quite different. The misconception that it is, comes from the name "Schizophrenia" which in greek means split personality, and was coined when the illness was even less understood than it is today. Please don't get bogged down in this for you are detracting from what is an otherwise fascinating and important set of issues.. and yes people do suffer it..

[rissababynta]

Schizophrenia is a recognised yet often misunderstood mental condition which results in people being delusional or suffering hallucinations, both by vision and hearing. It is not a multiple or divided personality disorder which are quite different. The misconception that it is, comes from the name "Schizophrenia" which in greek means split personality, and was coined when the illness was even less understood than it is today. Please don't get bogged down in this for you are detracting from what is an otherwise fascinating and important set of issues.. and yes people do suffer it..

Schizophrenia is absolutely amazing. We just went over it in psychology class and even though it has always been something of an interest of mine, i still learned so many things, such as which parts of the brain are commonly what is going haywire to cause such a condition. Viewing an individual suffering from schizophrenia is quite sad and at times scary, although schizophrenia sufferers are rarely ever violent, especially when properly medicated. Fran summed it up pretty darn well for you. There is still so much information about it though, it's amazing...

schizophrenia is not something that you can catch (some people think that it is some kind of infectious disesase and if they get sneezed on, they're in for trouble, which is like sitting here saying that you are not going to kiss someone because you may get aids...) but it is something that can be a part of you your whole life and then suddenly one day, as a teenager or something, you start having signs of it. There are many people that have no idea that they have schizophrenia until they are well into adulthood too.

[Sarasvati]

Schizophrenia is a recognised yet often misunderstood mental condition which results in people being delusional or suffering hallucinations, both by vision and hearing. It is not a multiple or divided personality disorder which are quite different. The misconception that it is, comes from the name "Schizophrenia" which in greek means split personality, and was coined when the illness was even less understood than it is today. Please don't get bogged down in this for you are detracting from what is an otherwise fascinating and important set of issues.. and yes people do suffer it..

Very, very many people I've known very clearly do suffer delusions yet have no diagnosis for schizophrenia. Neither do they suffer the tardive dyskenesia that is so prevalent among "schizophrenics" on medication.

To answer my own question, you can not "get" schizophrenia. It is not detectable like a virus or a chemical. It is simply a convenient classification for a wide range of psychological disturbances none of which are necessarily delusional.

Until I have met an individual who disproves my view, I stand by my original assertion that medication for schizophrenia creates the ilness.

[darkeyes]

Very, very many people I've known very clearly do suffer delusions yet have no diagnosis for schizophrenia. Neither do they suffer the tardive dyskenesia that is so prevalent among "schizophrenics" on medication.

To answer my own question, you can not "get" schizophrenia. It is not detectable like a virus or a chemical. It is simply a convenient classification for a wide range of psychological disturbances none of which are necessarily delusional.

Until I have met an individual who disproves my view, I stand by my original assertion that medication for schizophrenia creates the ilness.

Mental illness of any kind is difficult to prove or disprove.. in the case of schizophrenia as with multiple or divided personality disorders there is an ongoing debate within the medical community whether or not they are what they are claimed to be. There is no doubt that those who suffer from any of those illnesses, whatever they in fact are, are suffering from something but the brain is so complex it is difficult to be exact when it comes to diagnosis. For now, the terminologies which we commonly use exist to describe a number of variations on what we understand them to be. They are imprecise, partly because our understanding of the brain and its problems is imprecise, but at this time they are arguably the best we have. Whether a side effect of medication causes what you say it does is feasible but arguable. What is certain is that sufferers of schizophrenia quickly once again become delusional or hallucinatory when deprived of their medication.

Now stop hijacking the thread S.. and discuss the issue at hand...

[rissababynta]

Mental illness of any kind is difficult to prove or disprove.. in the case of schizophrenia as with multiple or divided personality disorders there is an ongoing debate within the medical community whether or not they are what they are claimed to be. There is no doubt that those who suffer from any of those illnesses, whatever they in fact are, are suffering from something but the brain is so complex it is difficult to be exact when it comes to diagnosis. For now, the terminologies which we commonly use exist to describe a number of variations on what we understand them to be. They are imprecise, partly because our understanding of the brain and its problems is imprecise, but at this time they are arguably the best we have. Whether a side effect of medication causes what you say it does is feasible but arguable. What is certain is that sufferers of schizophrenia quickly once again become delusional or hallucinatory when deprived of their medication.

Now stop hijacking the thread S.. and discuss the issue at hand...

I completely agree with you. A lot of the medications used for mental disorders (depression meds for example) are not fully understood. We know what they do and the basics behind what they do, but we don't know exactly why these paticular medications work. All we know is that they do work.

Also, dilusions are not what makes people considered a schitzophrenic. It is just a part of it.

[Sarasvati]

Now stop hijacking the thread S.. and discuss the issue at hand...

Give me a break woman, I have 3 posts about the subject of the thread, I have hardly hijacked it. But the schizophrenia aside has been a stinking spliff to puff away at and I don't regret sharing it with you and Rissa. Anyway I thought you liked a good fume sometimes.

I still hope to get replies to my questions regarding art and paedophilia I posed in my earlier posts. If I could get some I might be able to get back into the original thread.

Give us a hand babe and not a slap. Ok I'll take a slap too.

[darkeyes]

Give me a break woman, I have 3 posts about the subject of the thread, I have hardly hijacked it. But the schizophrenia aside has been a stinking spliff to puff away at and I don't regret sharing it with you and Rissa. Anyway I thought you liked a good fume sometimes.

I still hope to get replies to my questions regarding art and paedophilia I posed in my earlier posts. If I could get some I might be able to get back into the original thread.

Give us a hand babe and not a slap. Ok I'll take a slap too.

Oi u!!! Nunna ya lip!!!!:eek: Course me likes a gud fume... but wot me can hav an wot u allowed not the same thing at all!!! Do as me sez.. not as me dus!!!:bigrin:

Ne ways not havin u involved wiv me an Ris.. ruinin our cosy indeed!! tee hee:tong:

[rissababynta]

Ne ways not havin u involved wiv me an Ris.. ruinin our cosy indeed!! tee hee:tong:

That kinda sounded dirty :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

That kinda sounded dirty :bigrin:

....kinda sounded...??? Zif me wud.... tee hee...:bigrin:

[Toad82]

I don’t know where to start so I am just going to jump in. I may deviate a bit from the original topic, but it is still within the parameters of it. I am going to try and keep this short, but knowing myself I doubt it. I am going to start with the mundane and then go on to the topics I am sure will get a rise out of people, one way or another. I know I think a lot differently than others. I will also try to show my meaning in the question that brought this all about and the main reason why I asked it in the first place. Please bear with me, I am on pain killers.


Friends:

My dictionary defines “friends” as: Somebody emotionally close, an acquaintance, an ally, an advocate of cause, or a patron.

I define a friend as someone that I am psychologically and/or emotionally close with that also feels the same towards me. That’s it, that is my definition. With that said let me share one of my personal mottos. “Love Above Honor, Honor Above All Else.” This is how I live my life. Those that have read some of my other posts will already know I have AS. Those that understand AS will probably understand the things I am writing better than those that don’t. When I say “This is how I live my life” that is what I mean. For me it is a sense of loyalty and honor, but also one of the characteristics of AS. People with AS can lie, but we are usually much less likely too because we don’t care or understand your emotional responses. The people I have an emotional response too I refuse to lie to, so the “Love Above Honor, Honor Above All Else” thing is really easy for me. This is one reason why I asked the question in the first place. I honestly don’t know what I would do.


Art:

My dictionary defines “art” as: creation of beautiful things, beautiful objects, branch of art, or creation by humans.

I define it the same way. Art to me is truly whatever you see it as. This belief is another reason for the original question. I collect nude art. I have for many years. I like to look at it, but it is not a sexual thing to me at all. The silkiness of the female form to the coarser form of males, I like it all. The picture I use as an avatar on this site is in fact one of the paintings hanging behind me as I write this. This painting, which brings out an emotional response to me has made me want to commission two other paintings; in the same style and by the same artist, but with two men kissing in one painting and two women in the other.

I contacted the artist and was told that she loved the idea, I just needed to find or take my own pictures because she paints what she sees in pictures. Not having the money to hire personal models I started the search online for pictures that would work, including some soft porn sites. Anyone that has a porn “addiction” knows if you look at enough porn that other, usually harder sites will pop up. One day, one did. One day while looking for pictures of two males kissing on a site, another site popped up which was mixed with pictures of adults and children though not in the same pictures. One picture struck me and I have thought about it from time to time. It was a picture of two boys, about nine years of age, standing together. One boy (the taller of the two) was behind the other with his hands over the shorter boys shoulders coming down to his chest, in a chest to back hug. Both boys were nude and the boy in front was unblocked to be fully seen while the other could not be. As I said I have thought about this photograph from time to time, what I didn’t say was this all happened years ago and if I could, I would have gladly hung it in my front room with my other art.

Some would call the above picture child porn, I say it is nothing more than art that some use in ways it may or may not have been meant for. If you look at U.S. sex laws it really depends on the judge, D.A. and whether it is an election year or not to what is considered against the law. When Robert Mapplethorpe’s work gets outlawed, but Sally Mann’s work get time in the spotlight how are we suppose to know where the law falls.


Paedophilia:

My dictionary defines “paedophilia” as: a sexual desire for children. And children in the legal sense as: young human beings, somebody not yet of age, or human offspring.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

As the above web site shows the opinions of others are the defining rule of law and because of that almost everything to do with “paedophilia” I take issue with. The opinions of others should not rule someone else’s life in such a way. To say that no adult could love a child in a caring way is wrong. To say no child knows what they want is foolish. To say that children don’t know what love is, is beyond arrogant. And to say that all children are the same is just sad.

Earlier I shared one of my personal mottos, now I am going to share my other motto. It’s a sentence that shapes how I think about all things related to sexuality and will probably help explain why I think the way I do. “You can’t help who you fall in love with.” That sentence is a driving force in my personal thoughts. I can’t find fault for those that find themselves in an emotional or purely sexual state. I can however find fault with those that take advantage of others which is what I see as the problem with paedophilia. And no I don’t believe it is always the adult taking the advantage.

When most write about paedophilia they almost always take the stance that nothing emotional can exist between those involved or it’s a faux emotion. I say that takes a special kind of arrogance to “know” what someone else is feeling, much less more than one. I find it funny that some of the people that are so vocal about paedophilia are the ones that say age is just a number. By pure definition I am a pedophile, but so are most of the people reading this. Unless you only have a thing for geriatrics or for MILF’s or DILF’s chances are you have thought something sexual about someone under eighteen; even for just a moment. When discussing this with others before I have been told there is a difference, by definition there is not. For this issue a seventeen year old is the same as a ten year old. The only difference is there is usually an age where the punishment becomes more severe if crossed. Is there seriously anyone that can tell an eighteen year old from a seventeen year old one hundred percent of the time. I know I can’t.

I have known that I am not straight since I was seven or so. Growing up I had two mothers and very little contact with adult males. Because of my autism I never really wanted to be touched or held until I got in my early teens. Even then it was really only by certain people, most of whom were out queer males. At the time I didn’t really have emotions so I didn’t fully realize my own thoughts. Now looking back since I have gained emotions I understand I wanted and needed a closeness with adult males, but even more with queer adult males. If the opportunity would had presented itself I probably would have took it to be with someone. Some would say that I would not have known what was best for me, but I have always been more mature than my peers. If it would have happened, I believe my younger life would have been a great deal different, but for the better.

Since I have been a member of this site I have asked a few times “what is love” each and every time I have either been told what a dictionary defines it as or told it is different for everyone. By some of these same people I am told that sexuality is very fluid, that wants and desires change and morph. These are also the people that like to say that children don’t know what love is. I am not going to try and debate this, but couldn’t be that their definition changes with time. Could it be just maybe that yours did too from when you were their age. Could it be that “we” adults have forgot what young love is like? Could it be “we” put our past experiences on those younger than us to make their life as ours was? Could it be that adults, especially parents are threatened by children’s sexuality?

Thinking about all this for me it comes down to I don’t like when people minimize others, by looping a group of people into labels that make them more comfortable. If people were more honest with their children and children in general maybe people would be more comfortable with children’s sexuality, or sexuality in general. Children are people. People vary greatly. To try and make all be the same is a futile action, one that does harm as well as helps.

This country as well as others need laws that make sense and takes in the variables that most just overlook. Hopefully most will agree that laws protecting children should be enforced, but I for one can not say the same for all teens. It is laughable that depending on where you are will depend on whether a child is a child. Twelve, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, eighteen, or married gets to decide it all. Keep in mind it wasn’t all that long ago when “our” thoughts on sex was much different. Also keep in mind that in some states a nineteen year old can be with a seventeen year old, but if the nineteen year old turns twenty they can go to jail. Also keep in mind the case from a few years ago where an eighteen year old made his seventeen year old girlfriend of a few years cry. He left and her mother came home to find her daughter crying. She knew and had no problem with the boyfriend before hand, but she turned him in anyways. Skip ahead to now and the boyfriend is now married to his girlfriend. They are husband and wife and parents as well, but he is now also a sex offender for life and will have to register wherever he lives. This is a real case, but I can’t remember the state they lived in. This all happened because a parent had an emotional response.

Everything I wrote and a lot more that I didn’t contributed to me asking the original question. This is obviously something feel strongly about, as I take issue with almost everything having to do with sexuality. In time maybe a debate will start about everything said and not. Until then this a bit of my contribution and maybe it might make someone think about theirs.


Sorry about it being so long and hopefully it makes sense. I wasn’t joking about being on pain killers.



RJ:lokai:

[darkeyes]

Toad, please don't apologise for the length of your post. I believe it is a valuable and powerful argument, very little of which I find myself able to disagree with.... if only others would attempt to put half as much brainpower into our attitudes toward children and sex I truly believe our world would be a much safer place for them.

I agree that it is quite possible for a child to fall in love, and it is possible that they are ready to begin to explore that feeling both physically and emotionally. Unfortunately not all children become emotionally and physically mature at the same rate.... I have known many 13 and 14 year old girls who are easily mature enough to embark on this hazardous road and would I believe cope very well.... less so with boys of that age, but it is quite possible with them also. On the other hand I have known many girls and boys of 20 and much older who are just not ready for such a relationship.... some will never be sufficiently prepared for either love or the act of sex.

The problem with the law is that it has grabbed out at an arbitrary age of consent for different reasons accross the globe, sometimes religious, sometimes cultural and in the west usually puritanically moral... man made law will always be flawed for it can never fully and adequately make allowance for every case. It can not do this because we are an immensely complicated species and we are all so different emotionally and physically, and we all have our own sense of morality which so far legislators have been unable to cater for. What is worse is that they never even try and are not prepared to even make that effort... to be fair to them children and sex is a massive minefield and would involve more than simply changing the law.... it would require a sea change in attitudes by the general population and institutions which have a vested interest in things staying as they are... and I do not believe that we are ready for that..

...if we could devise a system and a way of determining the suitability of the young to be able to embark on love, or merely just sex when they become sufficiently mature to do so then I would favour a change in the law.. yet we would probably require to retain an age of consent in a different form because we do not have the right to prevent people from making mistakes for their entire lives. We can, and do through present law forbid sexual activity among and with children who are under the age of consent ostensibly for their protection, but also to prevent them making mistakes in their life which can and do have appalling consequences for their future. It exists to give them the time to become adult enough to be able to cope with love and sex. Some are long mature enough to do so by the time they reach the age of consent as I have tried to show... others less so.. and so in an attempt to protect and to some degree control the immature, an arbitrary age is agreed upon and imposed.

You are right about the difficulty in determining the true age of many young people. I did everything I could to look as mature as possible when I was a young teenager (and bein so little and slight it was a damn difficult job) and teens today do just the same to circumvent rules and regulations and law as well as to make them as attractive as possible to those they wish to take an interest in them.. physical maturity does not always go with emotional maturity of course and so we have so many tragic consequences...

The law as it stands certainly in my country is inadequate for it does penalise and prevent many who are quite mature enough to enjoy the sexual side of life, and penalise those adults who might have sex with them. It also penalises those adults and others who are preyed upon by sexually precocious and adventurous teenagers who are under age.. I agree with your observation there 100%.. for I more than once was determined to seduce an adult for the satisfaction of my desires and for no other reason.

It is a hugely difficult area, and society's patronising and often puritanical attide to our children accross the whole spectrum of their lives is often counter-productive.. yet until we can devise something better the law stands and should stand... I wish it could be otherwise, not because I am sexually interested in children, but because I do not like preventing anyone from pursuing something for which they may be very adequately emotionally and physically able to manage. I am libertarian by nature and inclination, yet sometimes our more libertarian attitudes have to be held in check, and we must accept some things in the interests of those who are not able to deal with life and its stresses. A traumatised and ruined child is a pitiful and tragic thing and for all them I could weep. While accepting your arguments in the main, for now I am afraid we are where we are, and until our societies are more ready to develop and find ways to benefit all much more than they do now, sadly we are simply going to have to accept laws which, in theory and officially at least, are of benefit to the common good overall... warts and all...

[Sarasvati]

Toad, please don't apologise for the length of your post. I believe it is a valuable and powerful argument, very little of which I find myself able to disagree with.... if only others would attempt to put half as much brainpower into our attitudes toward children and sex I truly believe our world would be a much safer place for them.

I agree that it is quite possible for a child to fall in love, and it is possible that they are ready to begin to explore that feeling both physically and emotionally. Unfortunately not all children become emotionally and physically mature at the same rate.... I have known many 13 and 14 year old girls who are easily mature enough to embark on this hazardous road and would I believe cope very well.... less so with boys of that age, but it is quite possible with them also. On the other hand I have known many girls and boys of 20 and much older who are just not ready for such a relationship.... some will never be sufficiently prepared for either love or the act of sex.

The problem with the law is that it has grabbed out at an arbitrary age of consent for different reasons accross the globe, sometimes religious, sometimes cultural and in the west usually puritanically moral... man made law will always be flawed for it can never fully and adequately make allowance for every case. It can not do this because we are an immensely complicated species and we are all so different emotionally and physically, and we all have our own sense of morality which so far legislators have been unable to cater for. What is worse is that they never even try and are not prepared to even make that effort... to be fair to them children and sex is a massive minefield and would involve more than simply changing the law.... it would require a sea change in attitudes by the general population and institutions which have a vested interest in things staying as they are... and I do not believe that we are ready for that..

...if we could devise a system and a way of determining the suitability of the young to be able to embark on love, or merely just sex when they become sufficiently mature to do so then I would favour a change in the law.. yet we would probably require to retain an age of consent in a different form because we do not have the right to prevent people from making mistakes for their entire lives. We can, and do through present law forbid sexual activity among and with children who are under the age of consent ostensibly for their protection, but also to prevent them making mistakes in their life which can and do have appalling consequences for their future. It exists to give them the time to become adult enough to be able to cope with love and sex. Some are long mature enough to do so by the time they reach the age of consent as I have tried to show... others less so.. and so in an attempt to protect and to some degree control the immature, an arbitrary age is agreed upon and imposed.

You are right about the difficulty in determining the true age of many young people. I did everything I could to look as mature as possible when I was a young teenager (and bein so little and slight it was a damn difficult job) and teens today do just the same to circumvent rules and regulations and law as well as to make them as attractive as possible to those they wish to take an interest in them.. physical maturity does not always go with emotional maturity of course and so we have so many tragic consequences...

The law as it stands certainly in my country is inadequate for it does penalise and prevent many who are quite mature enough to enjoy the sexual side of life, and penalise those adults who might have sex with them. It also penalises those adults and others who are preyed upon by sexually precocious and adventurous teenagers who are under age.. I agree with your observation there 100%.. for I more than once was determined to seduce an adult for the satisfaction of my desires and for no other reason.

It is a hugely difficult area, and society's patronising and often puritanical attide to our children accross the whole spectrum of their lives is often counter-productive.. yet until we can devise something better the law stands and should stand... I wish it could be otherwise, not because I am sexually interested in children, but because I do not like preventing anyone from pursuing something for which they may be very adequately emotionally and physically able to manage. I am libertarian by nature and inclination, yet sometimes our more libertarian attitudes have to be held in check, and we must accept some things in the interests of those who are not able to deal with life and its stresses. A traumatised and ruined child is a pitiful and tragic thing and for all them I could weep. While accepting your arguments in the main, for now I am afraid we are where we are, and until our societies are more ready to develop and find ways to benefit all much more than they do now, sadly we are simply going to have to accept laws which, in theory and officially at least, are of benefit to the common good overall... warts and all...

Suppose a couple of 8 year olds insist they are in love and sufficiently developed emotionally. Should we feel right to step in and overrule them.

In my view, it must assuredly be so. And so we must accept the need to set an inflexible age of consent somewhere and 16 seems very reasonable to me.

I think many adults are not sufficiently developed emotionally or psychologically to partake in relationships, affairs, sexual liaisons, etc. And we may find it very hard to establish what we might mean by "maturity".

Nevertheless children must be protected from the many pitfalls that can potentially befall them if they become entangled in relationships in which they have limited rational control. And we must accept our responsibilty to proscribe their actions where necessary.

The emotional nature of pubescent children makes them extremely vulnerable especially to the predatory instincts of unscrupulous adults.

How often do we hear of drug users and prostitutes who have been groomed by a trusted adult?

Additionally every unplanned teenage pregnancy reflects the failure of young love. The children bear the consequences of this failure as they knock back the Red Bull their mother's have given them. These children typically struggle to develop properly in a competitive world.

If a young teenager embarked upon a relationship whch had none of these consequences then fine but we must protect the vulnerable majority. It is our duty to do this.

My observation is that a lot of young lust is little more experiential than a discarded kebab on the pavement.

So often it is emotionally desperate young girls looking for mistreatment by the local "attitude merchant" who sits there spitting on the ground to show off his virility.

They make life easy for the Desmond Morris's of this world.

Sexual maturity requires intellectual management - too few possess it and head straight for their pornography.

[darkeyes]

I don't believe we are singing from a different song sheet S hun... I just hate arbitrary nature of anything which does not take into account our diverseness... the law on age of consent is just that, and makes a proscription for many which I do not like one bit.. it is much easier to have a blanket ban on something which most of humanity can share quite legally and enjoyably, and yet some, physically, mentally and emotionally mature enough to do so, are banned by law because of its arbitrariness.. I understand it, and until we can devise a way of satisfactorily accommodatiing that minority of those who are under age without prejudicing or endangering the interests of the majority who are still too young and immature, then for now yes, I agree...the law should stand with its arbitrary age limit...

[Sarasvati]

I don't believe we are singing from a different song sheet S hun... I just hate arbitrary nature of anything which does not take into account our diverseness... the law on age of consent is just that, and makes a proscription for many which I do not like one bit.. it is much easier to have a blanket ban on something which most of humanity can share quite legally and enjoyably, and yet some, physically, mentally and emotionally mature enough to do so, are banned by law because of its arbitrariness.. I understand it, and until we can devise a way of satisfactorily accommodatiing that minority of those who are under age without prejudicing or endangering the interests of the majority who are still too young and immature, then for now yes, I agree...the law should stand with its arbitrary age limit...


We could have a licensing scheme allowing consent based upon supposed maturity. Perhaps this would satisfy your desire for flexibility and diversity. But would we trust those adults issuing them? Not me. And if I had any say I would not allow such licenses for many adults never mind teenagers.

For the reasons I gave above I would still prefer a blanket rule based upon age.

Would you let me know what you feel you gained personally in your underage liaisons?

[darkeyes]

Would you let me know what you feel you gained personally in your underage liaisons?Wasnt going to answer this S..but this is me last word on this thread.. apart from the obvious...I developed an enjoyment of good sex done well by those well versed in its attractions and skills.. how to read good body language and bad warning signals.. that sex and love were not synonimous..that sex wasnt always as good as telly or the pics...and yet sometimes could be ever so much better.. that I could hurt people more easily than I could hurt .. but that I could be hurt.. that I had power over guys and some women and girls... in time..just what a selfish self centred little bitch I was.. that I preferred my own sex... that far 2 many guys were in it for a quick hump and would leave me up in the air.. I didnt much like boys around my own age.. and just how sensitive some people can be.. me included..

It can be argued that I could have done all this and more at age 16 or 18 or older ..maybe.. its moot... I learned to deal with it in my way and had I not done it when I did and learned what I did when I did, I am unsure of whether I would be the person I am today and have learnt the same lessons.... unlikely I think.. I did it because I needed to..and was ready to.. for better or worse? Who can say.. it doesnt matter..I have few regrets ..