imaginary pedophile

[Mark6]

There's a difference between fiction and fantasy. And there's a difference between far fetched fantasy and realizable fantasy. Someone's desire to be part of the Enterprise crew is different from his desire to commit incest.

About 20 years ago I stumbled on cheap porn magazine called "Family Letters" (IIRC, it was my then-girlfriend who bought it somewhere). As one may guess from the title, "Family Letters" was a magazine about incest, although no story featured anyone younger than about 17; I say "about" because age was never explicitly mentioned, but you can guess if a character is high school senior, or recent graduate.

One story both me and my GF found particularly titillating involved a teenage boy and his mother. Since by that time I was already in my 20's, there was never any possibility of this particular fantasy being "realizable", even if I wanted to. I did not "desire" to sleep with my own mother -- I "desired" to be that horny teenager sleeping with his mother, -- which is as much a fantasy as desiring to be part of the Enterprise crew.

Yet, to absolutely no surprise of mine, "Family Letters" is on Canada's prohibited list" http://www.slashlegal.com/archive/index.php/t-66009.html

 

[chillzero]

Most police officers, parole officers, psychologists specializing in pedophilia, parents and social workers would probably agree that the above are legitimate concerns. And that this man probably is a pedophile, whether he has ever, in his entire life, molested a young girl or not.

Legitimate concerns, possibly. I don't think anyone can state that he is a paedophile when no crime has been committed.

Now, "valid concerns" don't equate to "crime" but they might, in the near or far future.

'Might' does not nd should not cover 'beyond reasonable doubt', in my opinion.

They also might never, that's true...but this guy's fantasies and online activities probably should be taken into account if he ever, say, moves into a neighborhood where there's an elementary school or applies to be a school bus driver.

Wow.

There's a difference between fiction and fantasy. And there's a difference between far fetched fantasy and realizable fantasy. Someone's desire to be part of the Enterprise crew is different from his desire to commit incest.

Where are you drawing that line?
I don't fantasise about being on the crew of the Enterprise.
Like this man I have fantasies that are very humanly possible to go out and realise. I have clear motive to harm a certain person. I have a specific person in mind. I have even lived in near proximity to them. By your reasoning above that should all be taken into consideration, and I should be imprisoned because 'maybe' I would decide at some future date to act on my fantasy and cause harm to this person.

So ... where's the line?

 

[D'rok]

Accusing people of dishonesty seems a bit much. In what way have I been dishonest?



It seems to me you are ducking the actual point.

If I write some purely fictional pornographic text, about purely fictional teenagers having sex, in such ways as would be perfectly legal if real teenagers of their age were doing it, it can be illegal. Right?

You seem to be equating the act of making up fiction with the act of getting two real people to boink on camera. I'm pretty sure there are very significant differences between the two acts, both legally and morally.

In any case I think that having a different age of consent for boinking on and off camera is a bit silly. If you're old enough to risk HIV with a potential date rapist in the back of a car, you're old enough to have sex with a thoroughly-tested partner in front of multiple cameras.

The only reason to make a legal difference that I can take seriously is the "people look down on porn performers, so it's a bad idea to take part in porn if you could have a better career". However I'm generally very much against laws meant to "protect" people from judgmental idiots by preventing them from offending judgmental idiots.



So what are you disagreeing with me about?



I thought that was the discussing we were having, but you seem hell-bent on taking offence at who-knows-what.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Joe Random]

"If" .. indeed.
Tell me, do you think that Stephen King should be in prison - more for his writing as Bachmann?



What about me? I'm a horror writer, and several of my tales have resulted from a fantasy of doing terrible things to someone ... someone I actually know... and yet .... I'm a pacifist.

Stephen R. Donaldson will never be heard from again, and if zombie Nabokov ever comes back then it's off to the slammer for his rotting ass.

Maybe we should build a wall around all of Japan as the most efficient way of dealing with the comics industry there. Which gives me an idea for a good reboot angle on the John Carpenter Escape From New York franchise ...

... damn, which would mean I need to get sent off to Oz now, too. Ah, for the best I guess. After all, you never know what I might do. I mean "if", and all that.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Most police officers, parole officers, psychologists specializing in pedophilia, parents and social workers would probably agree that the above are legitimate concerns. And that this man probably is a pedophile, whether he has ever, in his entire life, molested a young girl or not.

Now, "valid concerns" don't equate to "crime" but they might, in the near or far future. They also might never, that's true...but this guy's fantasies and online activities probably should be taken into account if he ever, say, moves into a neighborhood where there's an elementary school or applies to be a school bus driver.

My mistake, might, not if or maybe. If someone might commit a crime (because they imagined doing it), we should treat that as a valid concern.

Have I got the euphemisms for "thoughtcrime" and "guilty till proven innocent" correct yet or do we need a few more posts for clarification.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Should Ian Anderson be looking over his shoulder?

No, but John Anderton should