Gotcha Blog Post
And this was another concern raised regarding the highly troubling tendancies people have in addressing child sex issues....
Gotcha Blog Post:
The intellectualisation of this issue is quite disturbing. Child porn, from those who procure and produce it, distribute it, get off on it, or choose to view it, are contributing to the mental and life destruction of a defenceless human being. Child sexual assault (’assault’, because they are not in a ‘power position’ to either resist, rationalise or refuse it...) is a crime of the lowest order. Even criminals themselves, as lowly as many are, possess a ‘code’ that sees these ‘rock spiders’, as they are known, as the lowliest of the low.
Intellectualising this issue is value-less and ill-informed. Any rationalisation of the child-sex issue is as bereft of value as the crime itself.
Posted: Sat 08 Jul 06 at 04:29pm"
Gotcha Blog Post
I recently posted this opinion during an online debate on child-sex offenders. There were far too many people writing in trying to provide excuses and intellectualising the most disgusting of all crimes....
Gotcha Blog Post:
To say that mere possession of child porn is ‘victimless’, is extraordinarily naive at best, and makes you liable as an apologist at worst.
Viewing images of criminal acts, taken obviously at the time of perpetration of the crime, places the viewer in a position of ‘accessory to the fact’, in both legal, and moral terms. This is why ‘viewing’ child porn is as odourous as perpetration. Unless the purpose of ‘viewing’ is to determine the identity of the silent victim or the perpetrator for prosecution, the viewer is gulity of creating ‘demand’ for the product. It’s the same as drug pushers, who may not be ‘users’ per se, but are as criminally liable as ‘promoters’. They are ‘feeding’ a market. They are as guilty as the manufacturers.
And for those expressing the extraordinary view that child sex-abuse ‘may or may not’ cause long term psychological harm, I, for once, am almost speechless. The only reason I can see that someone would or could make that assertion, is perhaps because they are damaged victims themselves unable to consciously discern the crime (and in need of urgent therapy), or apologists with tenuous links to the ‘market’.
Unbelievable, and sincerely troublesome.
Posted: Sat 08 Jul 06 at 08:13pm"
