Huh.

[ravan]

Apparently even Perverted Justice can't tell the difference between active child molesters and pedophiles who do not act on their urges.

Pedophilia is a mental illness. True, it's a revolting mental illness, but unless the person actually harms or financially supports the harm of a child (actual images of child porn), it's not illegal. No harm, no foul.

I some days feel sorry for people with this problem - they can't even admit the urges enough to get help without being reported for something or socially ostracized. How are they supposed to get help if admitting the problem is an instant police record or something?

Yes, kids need protecting. Their parents are the first line of defense, not LJ/6A. Pre-pubescent kids don't belong on LJ unsupervised, IMO

But making things worse for people who have been victims of child molesters and people who are fighting mental illness is not protecting anyone.

BTW, here are some links about treatment for pedophiles:
http://whyfiles.org/154pedophile/2.html
http://library.uchc.edu/bhn/cite/nyt/0224pedo.html
http://pedophileophobia.com/treatment.htm

Comments

[happiestsadist.livejournal.com]

You've said what I've been saying all along, though much better.

[weofodthignen]

Got into a nasty, nasty argument once because I defend people's right to look at any image they wish. I think it's production of child porn using real underaged subjects that is illegal, and that drawings and manipulations that don't start off with such real photos are legal, as is possession of stuff in either category . . . but then I constantly see news stories about people's computers getting confiscated for possession of child porn, and I am truly not sure the possession is not the whole of the crime in some of those instances, rather than its being on a school/government comp or the person being under special legal constraints due to a prior conviction. In other words I'm not sure you're right, legally, but that is where I would like the line to be, and used to think it went.

Frith,
M