BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The pedophile debate (subtopic of little girl model post)

 
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Rage
00:22 / 04.09.01
I don't think that pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. I think that pedophiles are born pedophiles, just like homosexuals are born homosexuals, just like necropihliacs are born necrophiliacs, etc. etc. etc.

So we've made some social progress in this world of ours. Homosexuality is now generally accepted. Hoorah! But how about pedophilia? Should pedophilia be generally accepted? Of course not. Obviously, the child is not consenting to the sexual act. Therfore, by reason of lack of consent, pedophilia shouldn't be accepted.

BUT, pedophiles do not choose to be sexually turned on by 11 year old boys... just like gay men do not choose to be sexually turned on by other men.

The other man consents. The child does not. Here we have our dilema.

Surly we can do more than tell pedophiles that they "sick" and "wrong." In the little girl model post, someone mentioned that it was wrong for pedophiles to have a community to share pictures and ideas with like minded individuals.

Pedophiles need their community just like we do.

The pictures exist. That's a fact. Let the pedophiles swap away. They themselves (the picture swapers) are not hurting anyone. The mothers who allow their children to pose for these pictures is another issue. Bad Parenting, it's called. If the mothers AREN'T allowing this, it's ALSO another issue. Rape, it's called.

But here we're talking about the pedophile picture swappers, who are merely exchanging pictures with other individuals who share their sexual desires. The pedophile picture swappers who realize that they can't rape some little kid... no matter how much they desire to... because it's wrong.

Let them have their pictures. Let them have an underground network of sexual desire and community on the internet. What ELSE do they have, but society telling them that they are sick perverts? Society from the right and middle and the left. Do you know how ALIENATED they must feel?

Imagine yourself to be sexually turned on by a 9 year old boy. Just imagine. What would YOU do?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
00:44 / 04.09.01
ok: let's assume paedophilia is not a choice the individual makes (but remember - there isn't - as far as i know - any scientific evidence to say either way). through no fault of their own, this person just happens to be repulsed/disinterested in adults and instead, fall for minors.

they now make a choice not to act on their impulses, which is good. but i think the question here, rage, is whether, by looking at these images, the individual is satiating his/her desire - or feeding it.

that's a big one.

i am sympathetic to people who find themselves locked into this mindset - no paedophile, i'm sure, would ever choose to be a paedophile. if it is biological - again, a big 'if', they are blameless in the first instance at least. even if this orientation is not automatic, and has been somehow 'learnt', it's almost certain it wasn't what they intended or chose.

i always wanted to insert into one of my scripts, well into the narrative, a single fragment of a scene in which we learn that one of the central characters appears to be looking at kids on his PC. he isn't caught. it is not referred to again. he goes about his business in exactly the same way as before. i was interested in how the audiences' perceptions towards him would shift.

and aaaarrrrghhh. it's too late and i'm too too tired to do this now. but i think it's good that you brought it up, rage. these are good issues to be addressing.

and good questions to be asking. 'cause right now i'm not entirely sure what to say.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
07:46 / 04.09.01
pat califia has written some good stuff on inter-generational relationships, but i feel she goes a little far for comfort. i do understand that even the youngest kids can be sexual beings, but i think it's too far a leap to then say they would then enter freely into a sexual relationship with an adult. being queer is something you're born as, i believe, but the difference is that consenting to have sex with another adult of the same gender is more clear cut. in ANY situation, surely the thought that another person may not be fully consenting to have sex with you is pretty repulsive.

but i agree - i think being turned on by little kids may well be natural for some. and i don't know what the answer is. cos if we start talking about 'deprogramming' then that sounds like what some still want to do to us queers.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
10:46 / 04.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Rage:
The pictures exist. That's a fact. Let the pedophiles swap away. They themselves (the picture swapers) are not hurting anyone. The mothers who allow their children to pose for these pictures is another issue. Bad Parenting, it's called.
What if the pictures are made without parental consent? Candy from strangers method of production? The production of underage porn would not necessarily be entirely above-board as is indicated here - I'm sure you'd readily admit that, though. The feelings of the kid in the pics has just as much need - moreso, in some ways - to be considered as those of the individual who is irresistably attracted to them, surely?

I think that's probably the sticking point - how much freedom can you allow one group without taking any away from another?

I agree, too, that it'd be great if there could be some kind of level at which the sexual impulse drops off - that pictures could be enough for some people. but surely that's just blinkering? Horniness could well override the idea of right and wrong, couldn't it? Doesn't it? Isn't that where kink comes into play, that line between what's considered good or bad?

I have no idea how to progress on the issue, though.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:20 / 04.09.01
Posit; When you're old and your bits are starting to fall off, you can have a clone made that's basically you at, say, five years old, and you have your mind, intelligence and memories dumped into that five year body and bingo! you've got another 70/80 odd years (by which time you'll have to do it again). Would that make your boy/girl/droidfriend a paedophile? Why?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
19:25 / 04.09.01
interesting metaphysics, ungodly, but i don't think we have to worry too much about that dilemma for half a century or so.

when i said no paedophile would choose their orientation (still working on the presumption paedophilia is inborn) - i meant that anyone in this position would soon realise that they had two choices -

one: to express their desires and become, in the process, a criminal and an abuser.
two: to abort their own sexuality. drown it out somehow. destroy what, if we're continuing from the first premise of this post, is a 'natural' part of themselves.

not a bad definition of hell on earth.

but: let's say our imaginary passive paedophile is choosing the latter. to keep score: he didn't choose his orientation, and now - s/he's made a commitment not to do anything about it.

then s/he starts surfing the internet. and s/he starts downloading pictures of kids. sometimes from (ostensibly non-sexual) mini-model pages, sometimes from unashamed sex sites. in the latter, some of these pictures will be naked kids who have no idea what's going on. in a minority they will be performing sex acts - or having sex acts performed on them.

what does this do to the paedophile? again, i think there are two answers -

one: that s/he is satiated by them. masturbates, expels tension/desire. but this can only ever be short-term relief, surely? and it isn't going to make his/her situation any better. that they desire something that in consummating, they would destroy.
two: instead of alieviating their urges, the photographs, movies, whatever - show them the physical realisation of what were just physical urges. it strengthens those urges. it makes them want to do it for real.

now, possibly, even if the latter is the case, a strong-minded individual may be able to resist their entire life - medicating themselves with second-hand experience drawn from the net.

but surely it's fanning the flames?

ok: so, s/he's there, getting their regular fix of fantasy. and they start to meet people - on the internet - who feel the same way. a sense of belonging, common experience, solidarity.

if the community is a support group, i can see how it might be useful. unfortunately, i think it's rather more likely that the individual would have their desires legitimized. even celebrated.

if paedophilia is inborn, i don't see a way out of this dilemma. the only choice is whether to hurt others or themselves.

but if paedophilia isn't a 'natural' orientation, if it is in fact some kind of maladaption - that way, at least, there's hope.

i don't know. anyone have any information etc they can bring to bear on this? it's so fucking hard...
 
 
autopilot disengaged
19:33 / 04.09.01
just thought, also:

re: internet kiddyporn sites:
supply = demand.

everyone knows: to keep hits up, you need plenty of FRESH CONTENT.

and every new picture is (potentially) some innocent scarred for life.
 
 
Ellis
19:56 / 04.09.01
Unless you use computer generated kids...
 
 
autopilot disengaged
19:59 / 04.09.01
it's preferable. becomes pretty much victimless. but again: does it make the viewers wanna see the real thing?
 
 
Ganesh
20:52 / 04.09.01
Oh, fucking hell, not this again...
 
 
autopilot disengaged
20:55 / 04.09.01
this has happened before? what was the outcome?
 
 
Ganesh
20:58 / 04.09.01
Basically, we´ve debated paedophilia inside and out, on previous Barbeliths. Since I´m paying mucho pesetas in a Spanish cyber-cafe, I´m not gonna go into the looong backstory but, as you´d expect, little was resolved.
 
 
Dee Vapr
23:51 / 04.09.01
oh... stop being so goddamn world-weary, 'Nesh. Let them debate. It's a highly charged, complicated topic, and it's not gonna go away.

and at least there aren't any psychic courts involved this time
 
 
ReformedLailaChromeDog23
00:18 / 05.09.01
yet
 
 
Verbal Kint
03:52 / 05.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh:
Oh, fucking hell, not this again...


Yep. My God, I go away for two months and this is what I missed?
 
 
Taliesyn
06:45 / 05.09.01
Did Lolita seduce Humbert or was it a childish game to her? Did she love him as he loved her? Was his real love or the insatiable lust of a paedophile?
...and what do you call a child who is attracted to adults?... are they "sick" as society has led us to believe anything that deviates from the norm is?
 
 
deletia
07:08 / 05.09.01
Generally, I'm not getting involved on this one, at least not until the NoncePatrol turn up, but I'd just like to say quickly.

quote:Originally posted by autopilot disengaged:
But this can only ever be short-term relief, surely? and it isn't going to make his/her situation any better. that they desire something that in consummating, they would destroy.


******

but surely it's fanning the flames?

[/i]


No. Not "surely" unless you are sure. These are posits. And basing your argument on the assumption that people react to stimuli in a particular way without evidence is always going to be dodgy.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
07:08 / 05.09.01
ok: not 'surely'. my bad. but i'm trying to pick my way around some pretty heavily-carged and sensitive issues here, and i'm thinking on my feet.

so: let me rephrase it as a question: do people think that the use of these kind of images etc act to temporarily satisfy (and therefore, in the long-term, to suppress) these desires...or satisfy and gratify - building on what was already there?

i think i could sit alone for a long time and come to no answer regarding this. i feel like i'm facing a brick wall. anyone?
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:28 / 06.09.01
I think either option is based on a completely mystified set of assumptions about how sexuality and desire work, not least the repeated idea that people are 'born that way' (huh - explain to me how a newborn has the desire to fuck kids much younger than him/her/itself. Or how the idea of pedophilia makes sense outside particular, socially constructed ideas about the distinction between adults and children).

When I look at porn - generally not child porn, but let's assume it works much the same way - the effect isn't one or the other of "satisfies and suppresses" or "gratifies and provokes". After I look at porn I may go to sleep, wank, go home, have sex with a partner, go out to find someone to have sex with, etc.

If you want to argue about what "effect" porn has on this undifferentiated group called pedophiles, you have to suspend value judgements about their behaviour, at least temporarily. Otherwise, it seems, nobody gets past - but mine is the only way to stop them fucking small boys!
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:42 / 06.09.01
i have trouble with the inborn argument myself. continued with it 'cause it almost seemed like a worst case scenario (plus i was exploring the original proposition as suggested by rage).

but, taking it as a starting point, i don't feel i can get any further with it.

yeah: it mystifies me more the more i think about it. and i don't especially like thinking about it.

but, on the other hand, if paedophilia is behaviour that's nurtured (though that's obviously an inadequate term) - well, i guess the debate's just beginning.

and i haven't got the heart for it right now.
 
 
Dee Vapr
13:28 / 06.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Crunchy Mr Bananapants:
fucking small boys!


I sounds like you're precariously linking Homosexuality + Paedophilia, Crunchy... it should be "small children". I'm sure you didn't mean it that way tho.
 
 
Jackie Susann
04:25 / 07.09.01
That's exactly how I meant it.
 
 
000
08:02 / 07.09.01
quote: by GaneshOh, fucking hell, not this again... Oooh Yes.

Basically, we´ve debated paedophilia inside and out, on previous Barbeliths. Since I´m paying mucho pesetas in a Spanish cyber-cafe, I´m not gonna go into the looong backstory but, as you´d expect, little was resolved


Hello my favourite topic, again.
How do you think it could be resolved on a board ever? And as long as more and more children disappear and end up as food for paedophiles, you know you have a topic and with every new member you will be in danger of seeing a new tread about it on barb , why? Because as you said already your self, most of us know what sexual abuse is and every time we see or hear of a new case in the media we all will remember, lots of victims will be remembered of their past just by seeing sexual scenes in movies. So in this case the peadophile debate will,for now, as long as there are no real punishments measures taken and no real openness towards the people, will you have anger and questions and as long as you have questions and feel anger, that what causes you to feel anger and ask questions is not solved.
And what was wrong with “Weaken the stronghold”? except that it wore you out?

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Laila ]
 
 
Ganesh
08:16 / 07.09.01
It was utterly pointless?
 
 
deletia
08:50 / 07.09.01
Noncery leads to anger. Anger leads to frustration. Frustration leads to irritable bowel syndrome. Irritable bowel syndrome leads to the dark side of the force.
 
 
MJ-12
08:50 / 07.09.01
No, prepared foods lead to irritable bowel syndrome. Weren't you paying attention?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
10:07 / 07.09.01
prepared foods make me angry.
 
 
MJ-12
10:39 / 07.09.01
prepared foods make the Baby Jesus cry
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
17:31 / 07.09.01
No, it's my cock up his arse that does that [/Deliberately Inflammatory]
 
 
MJ-12
18:13 / 07.09.01
You left out "relatively oversized"
 
 
Dee Vapr
19:58 / 07.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Laila:
And what was wrong with “Weaken the stronghold”? except that it wore you out?

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Laila ]


Laila, there's a difference between your indifference to reasoned argument (and it was you under the RRM suit for most of that thread wasn't it?) causing people to get exasperated with you, and your argument being so devestating right and true that people give up.

A very. big. difference.
 
 
000
16:22 / 08.09.01
By David McGowan
http:www.davesweb.cnchost.com
July 2001

"Paul and Shirley Eberle wrote The Politics of Child Abuse, a book that accuses mothers, mental health professionals, and prosecutors of feeding children stories about sexual abuse. Since the book was published by Lyle Stuart in l986, the Eberles have been cited as
experts in sexual abuse trials . What is startling about the Eberles' reputation as ground-breaking experts in the field is that their dubious credentials have not been widely challenged . Their publication, Finger, depicted scenes of bondage, S & M, and sexual activities involving urination and defecation. A young girl portrayed
with a wide smile on her face sits on top of a man whose penis is inside of her; a woman has oral sex with a young boy in a drawing
entitled `Memories of My Boyhood.'" -
Ms. Magazine, December 1988


While the size and scope of these operations have grown rapidly in recent years, America has - as it turns out - always been a nation whose laws were friendly to purveyors of child pornography. It was just over twenty years ago - in 1978 - that the very first federal statute on child pornography was passed into law. While forbidding production and sale, the statute placed no restrictions at all on the possession or trade of such materials.
New laws enacted in 1984 forbid the trade of child pornography regardless of whether any money changed hands, though possession still remained legal. In fact, as recently as 1990, private possession of child pornography was legal in 44 of the 50 states, despite the inescapable fact that all such materials were, by necessity, illegally produced and/or illegally acquired.
Technology has for some time now played a key role in greatly expanding the availability of child pornography. The Polaroid camera, for example, eliminated the need for child pornographers to have access to complicit photo labs. Home video cameras did likewise for moving images. Personal computers, digital cameras, web cams, scanners, and - especially - the Internet, have vastly expanded the reach of child pornography networks.
In the age of the Internet, child pornography is a booming business. The Los Angeles Times noted in December of 1999 that: "the number of investigations for Internet-related child pornography is soaring. The FBI launched 1,125 such inquiries this year, more than twice as many as last year." In the wake of this rising tide, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on December 17, 1999 which struck a serious blow to the prosecution of child pornography cases.
As the Times reported, the decision stipulated that "the government cannot prohibit computer-generated sexual images that only appear to be pictures of children." A later report noted that appeals court judge Donald Molloy stated that the First Amendment bars the government from criminalizing the generation of "images of fictitious children engaged in imaginary but explicit sexual conduct."
On January 22, 2001, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the case. Should the presidential appointers on the high court choose to affirm the decision of the lower court, prosecution of child pornography cases will become all but impossible in all fifty states. Until that time, prosecutors are "barred from bringing virtual-child pornography cases in California and the eight other Western states within the jurisdiction of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."
As critics have noted, graphics technology now available to the general public is so sophisticated that it is virtually impossible to determine if an image has been digitally altered, and if therefore any actual children were involved in the generation of the image. Justice Department lawyers argued that very point, noting that the "government may find it impossible in many cases to prove that a pornographic image is of a real child."
Any good defence attorney could, in other words, raise reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of an image. It could in fact be argued that all such computer images "only appear to be pictures of children." Computer images are not in fact photos, but are digital computer files that display as a facsimile of the original photo. A sound legal argument could be made that all digitally transferred and displayed child pornography is therefore legal, as it doesn't represent 'real children.'

That should come as great news to the international child pornography networks, given that the United States is their number-one market. According to investigative author Gordon Thomas, the majority of child pornography produced worldwide is targeted at the U.S., where by the early 1990s it was already a $3 billion a year business, and growing.
Thomas claims that - according to law enforcement figures - over 22 million copies of child pornography videos were sold or rented in the U.S. in 1991. He also writes that much of that pornographic material is produced here, where it is "part of the largest segment of movie making in the United States." Jan Hollingsworth concurs with that figure, describing child pornography as: "A three-billion-dollar - per year - U.S. industry that grossed twice that worldwide. It IS bigger than Disney. Much bigger."
Speaking of Disney, Thomas notes that child porn videos are frequently trafficked internationally by deceptively packaging them as Disney videos. Strangely enough, the first man to benefit from the circuit court decision was Patrick J. Naughton. You may remember him as the executive with the Walt Disney Co. who ran one of the company's kid-friendly web sites. Naughton was arrested and later tried on child pornography charges.

He was convicted on December 16, just one day before the decision was handed down in the case before the circuit court. Within
hours of the appeals court ruling, Naughton was released by federal prosecutors on $100,000 bail. Despite the fact that he was, as the Times acknowledged, convicted of "possessing pictures of actual children," the decision was made to release him "until the impact of the court's ruling can be sorted out," illustrating the significant undermining of existing law that the court ruling portends.
Closely associated with child pornography is, of course, child abuse. It should go without saying that all kids used in child pornography are abused children, their abuse recorded on film and tape for the depraved enjoyment of other child abusers. Also closely associated with child pornography is the always controversial issue of 'missing children.'
There is considerable debate as to whether there is a problem in this country with missing children. Some claim that 200,000 or more children disappear without a trace every year. Others steadfastly maintain that numbers such as those are grossly inflated,and that abduction of children by strangers with bad intent is actually quite rare.
The problem is that nobody really knows for sure, since the FBI - America's compiler of crime statistics - doesn't bother to keep track. As Ted Gunderson, former FBI station chief for Los Angeles, has stated: "The FBI has an accurate count on the number of automobiles stolen every year. It knows the number of homicides, rapes and robberies, but the FBI has no idea of the number of children that disappear every year. They simply do not ask for the statistics."

Many believe that the numbers aren't compiled because the FBI doesn't want to know - or more accurately, the FBI doesn't want the American people to know. What is known though is that reports of child abuse have skyrocketed. Between 1963 and 1988, reported cases of child abuse rose from 150,000 to 2,000,000 per year, a 1300% increase in just a quarter-century.

Child abuse may in fact be the most prevalent - and possibly the most significant - crime in American society, given that it provides the breeding ground for so much of the more visible crime plaguing Western culture. As Thomas reports: "over 90 percent of the teenage prison population are now victims of child abuse," and that population is growing rapidly.
In the wake of this rising tide, the Los Angeles Times reported in March 2001 what: "President [a clearly inappropriate use of the word] Bush's budget will trim a program aimed at preventing child abuse and cut some child care spending . A child abuse prevention program will see an 18% cut." That money will apparently be much better spent on handing out tax breaks for the wealthy and building missile defence shields . But here I digress.
Author and e-zine editor Robert Sterling has written of what he refers to as "a pattern of trivialization of child molestation evidence" that seems to characterize high-profile media stories. He points out, for instance, that in the highly publicized Woody Allen and Mia Farrow divorce case, all the attention was focused on Allen's illicit romance with Soon-yi Previn.

Almost entirely ignored in the media coverage was the fact that Allen was also charged with molesting his own seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. While the press dismissed those allegations as unfounded and unworthy of reporting, Sterling notes that "Connecticut state authorities, based on the testimony of Dylan and others, have stated that they do believe Woody did molest her, but decided not to prosecute anyway," allegedly to spare the child any further trauma.
Sterling also takes note of the "case of the Menendez brothers, who, after admitting to murdering their parents, painfully revealed that they were ruthlessly abused and molested by them over the years." Their claims were never investigated and the boys were "viciously demonized for trying to escape the murder charges and accused of making up their abuse," though there was in fact clear evidence of that abuse, according to a private investigator who worked on the case.
Also noted is the kid-gloves treatment afforded Michael Jackson when he was charged with molestation: "even though the accusations against him are widely believed to be true, [they] are merely passed off with a laugh among other smirking monologue jokes on Jay Leno." And of course, though unmentioned by Sterling, sister LaToya was ridiculed by the media when she came forward with stories about the sexual abuse suffered by the Jackson kids at the hands of their father.
Sterling references other cases as well, including the over-hyped au-pair trial in which evidence of prior abuse of the child by his parents was consistently ignored, and the Susan Smith case, in which the media refused to consider whether her own severe childhood abuse could have been a factor in the murder of her children, despite the fact that her father admitted to the chronic abuse.
Coupled with the fact that the press have consistently downplayed the occurrence of child molestation is the equally disturbing fact that that very same media have actively promoted the sexualization of children - a trend that has been greatly accelerated
in recent years, and which serves to legitimize pedophilia.
Taking note of the proliferation of young teen - and even pre-teen - sex symbols, Tom Junod wrote in Esquire that: "the entire culture is besotted with the erotic promise of teenage girls . The lure of jailbait now supplies the erotic energy to a popular culture desperate for what's new, what's young, what's alive."
The Junod article is, by the way, a profile of Greg Dark, one half of the former `Dark Brothers' - notorious purveyors of dark-themed, occult-tinged porno films. Dark is rather noteworthy for openly peddling child pornography, in that many of his films featured a very young Traci Lords, who began working with the Dark Brothers at the age of thirteen.
But Dark has put those days long behind him. He is now working comfortably in the mainstream. And he is no longer marketing teen sexuality. No, now he is creating music videos for Britney Spears, Mandy Moore and the pre-pubescent Leslie Carter (sister of
Aaron Carter and Back Street Boy Nick Carter). That is, according to Dark, a completely different line of work.
Some interesting facts about Dark emerge in the Esquire profile. It is revealed, for instance, that he was raised by a satanist father. Dark's father "used to read to Gregory from the works of Aleister Crowley, the noted satanist, when Gregory was very young." His father's collection of `black magic' books is one of Dark's most cherished possessions.
Also revealed is that Dark is a master manipulator, as he candidly admits to his interviewer: "And the thing is, I like manipulating people. I'm comfortable manipulating people. I'm good at it." Junod adds that, during Dark's porno days, he "asked people to do things, curious things, and they did them." Such is the nature of the man crafting the images of America's teen sex symbols and marketing them to millions of pre-teen fans ... but here again I digress.

TO BE CONTINUED...
 
 
000
16:37 / 08.09.01
PART IIB
Also closely associated with child pornography is the issue of child prostitution, which - make no mistake about it - is a booming business. A&E's "Investigative Reports" has noted that law enforcement figures indicate that there are currently some 600,000 child prostitutes working in the United States and Canada and that $5 billion a year is generated worldwide by pimp organizations specializing in the exploitation of children.

A&E also reported that, throughout North America, there is a "growing use of children in the sex trade," and that young boys make up 51% of that trade. The FBI has, of course, turned a blind eye; for the last quarter-century, "federal prosecutions of major pimp operations have been virtually nonexistent." As Dr. Lois Lee has noted: "It's not a high priority with the FBI to go after kids that are being transported across state lines. It's really a disgrace."
Dr. Lee is the founder of "Children of the Night," an organization devoted to helping repair the shattered lives of child sex trade victims. Her facility, said to be the only one of its kind in the world, has seen 10,000 kids pass through its doors. Fully ninety percent of them have suffered a lifetime of abuse - first at home, and later on the streets and alleys of America's big cities. Most of them suffered their first abuse before the age of three.
Many of these victims are runaways recruited from small towns across the country, then brought to prime child prostitution markets such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Once there, they have an average life span of just seven years; many of them never reach adulthood.
For as long as they survive though, they reap enormous financial rewards for their pimps. The younger the child, the more popular they are with the `Johns,' and therefore the more profitable for their exploiters.

All of this would tend to indicate that America is in something of a state of denial about the proliferation of child molestation, child prostitution, and child pornography rings, which constitute a vast underground in this country. But does this pedophilic underground extend into the halls of power? Is America's political, corporate and military elite hiding a particularly dirty little secret from the American people? A secret that, if exposed, could shatter America's cherished political and economic institutions and bring the house of cards crashing down?

Consider the case of Craig Spence, a behind-the-scenes Republican powerbroker in Washington. In June of 1989, the Washington Times published a story that sent shock waves across Capitol Hill. It seems that Spence had been operating a call-boy ring that supplied young boys, some of them very young boys, to the Washington elite of both political parties.

It was rumoured that a list of influential clients ran to some 200 names, and some of them were publicly identified. It was also alleged that the ring was part of a CIA sexual blackmail operation, gathering compromising evidence on Washington politicos and foreign ignitaries. Also connected to the case were prominent figures in the media; on the guest lists for Spence's `parties' were names such as Ted Koppel and Eric Severeid.

Spence's mansion was found to be overflowing with surveillance equipment, including hidden cameras and microphones and an abundance of two-way mirrors. Spence was also known to take his show on the road, giving some of his boys late-night tours of the White House, according to the Times. These tours were reportedly arranged by Donald Gregg, the national security adviser to then-Vice President George Bush.

Though Gregg adamantly denied the accusation, there were undeniable connections between the two men, including the fact that Spence had once sponsored a dinner for Gregg. The story quickly dropped off the media radar screen, and Washington and the press proceeded to pretend as though it had never been aired at all. By the time Spence turned up dead in a Boston hotel room just five months later, the story was all but forgotten.

Elsewhere in the country, a Republican operative named Larry King was embroiled in another high-level pedophile ring. King, whose operation was based in Omaha, Nebraska, had connections to Craig Spence as well as to Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Oliver North, and various other major players in Washington.

The story first began to emerge with the collapse of the Franklin Community Credit Union run by King, one of many such entities that went belly-up in the 1980s Savings and Loan scandals. A special senate 'Franklin Committee' was formed to look into allegations of financial improprieties, but soon found itself instead investigating claims of child rostitution, child pornography and ritual homicide.

The investigation soon led to some of the most powerful men in the state of Nebraska, including newspaper publisher Harold Andersen (a lunch partner of George Bush), a judge, the mayor of Omaha, the city's Games and Parks Commissioner, a prominent attorney, the former police chief of Omaha, and multi-billionaire Warren Buffet (for whose son King sponsored a political fund-raiser).

Also identified as a patron of the child prostitution ring was George Bush himself. Though ignored by the U.S. media, the case attracted some attention from the European press. Pronto, the largest circulation weekly in Spain, reported that the scandal "appears to directly implicate politicos of the state of Nebraska and Washington, D.C. who are very close to the White House and George Bush."

The report also noted that "there is reason to believe that the CIA is directly implicated," and that the "FBI refuses to help in the investigation and has sabotaged any efforts" by others to do so.
The operation appears to have been in business for several years, with the knowledge of, and for the perverse pleasure of, a variety of city, state and federal authorities.

Jerry Lowe, the first investigator assigned to the case by the Franklin Committee, reported back that: "The allegations regarding the exploitation of children are indeed disturbing. What appears to be documented cases of child abuse and sexual abuse dating back several years with no enforcement action being taken by the appropriate agencies is on its face, mind-boggling."
Republican State Senator John DeCamp, in his book The Franklin Cover-Up, presents a compelling body of evidence to document the charges made by the child victims and various others associated with the operation. Equally disturbing is the evidence of the massive cover-up that was perpetrated by the FBI, local police, the grand jury assigned to the case, and of course the ever-compliant media.
(One report almost made it through the media blackout. A documentary on the case entitled "Conspiracy of Silence" was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. Shortly before airtime, it was pulled without explanation and has been shelved ever since. The conspiracy of silence continues.)

The cover-up involved, according to DeCamp, the untimely deaths of at least fifteen key players in the scandal, including Franklin Committee investigator Gary Caradori, whose private plane was blown out of the sky on July 11, 1990 with Caradori and his eight-year-old son on board. Equally appalling is the fact that the child victims, rather than the perpetrators, were thrown in prison.

One of them, a young female victim, achieved the rather dubious honour of spending more time in solitary confinement than any woman in the history of the Nebraska penal system. It would be a full decade before any of the victims received even a semblance of justice, and that would ultimately come not from a criminal court, but from a civil court.

In February of 1998, a judgment was entered against defendant Larry King in favour of plaintiff Paul Bonacci, one of the most seriously abused of the child victims, whose abuse at the hands of King began when he was just six years old - and which included his forced collaboration in the production of child snuff films. The memorandum of the district court's decision, issued on February 22, 1999, reads as follows:

"Between December 1980 and 1988, the complaint alleges, the defendant King continually subjected the plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults, false imprisonments, infliction of extreme emotional distress, organized and directed satanic rituals, forced the plaintiff to 'scavenge' for children to be a part of the defendant King's sexual abuse and pornography ring, forced the plaintiff to engage in numerous sexual contacts with the defendant King and others and participate in deviate sexual games and masochistic orgies with other minor children. The defendant King's default has made those allegations true as to him ...

"The now uncontradicted evidence is that the plaintiff has suffered much. He has suffered burns, broken fingers, beatings of the head and face and other indignities by the wrongful actions of the defendant King. In addition to the misery of going through the experiences just related over a period of eight years, the plaintiff has suffered the lingering results to the present time. He is a victim of multiple personality disorder, involving as many as fourteen distinct personalities aside from his primary personality.
He has given up a desired military career and received threats on his life. He suffers from sleeplessness, has bad dreams, has difficulty in holding a job, is fearful that others are following him, fears getting killed, has depressing flashbacks, and is verbally violent on
occasion, all in connection with the multiple personality disorder and caused by the wrongful activities of the defendant King."

For his years of unspeakable abuse, physical and emotional suffering, and the complete shattering of his life, Bonacci was awarded one million dollars. While a bittersweet victory at best, it was considerably more than most other victims of such abuse have gotten. The trial was significant for another reason as well; it revealed a glimpse of the connections between the King case and various other multi-victim abuse cases around the country.


REFERENCES:

1. Asseo, Laurie "Justices Will Review Ban on Virtual Kiddie Porn,"
Associated Press, January 22, 2001

2. DeCamp, John W. The Franklin Cover-Up, AWT, Inc., 1992

3. Hollingsworth, Jan Unspeakable Acts, Congdon & Weed, 1986

4. Junod, Tom "The Devil in Greg Dark," Esquire, February 2001

5. Laurina, Maria "Paul and Shirley Eberle: A Strange Pair of
Experts," Ms. Magazine, December 1988
6. Li, David K. "Naughton Free in Time for Christmas," New York Post,
December 23, 1999

7. Li, David K. "Turn Him Loose! Judge Voids Naughton's Porno
Conviction," New York Post, January 22, 2000

8. Savage, David "Justices to Tackle 'Virtual' Child Porn," Los
Angeles Times, January 23, 2001

9. Sterling, Robert "Daddy's Little Princess," The Konformist, www.konformist.com

10. Tarpley, Webster G. and Anton Chaitkin George Bush: The
Unauthorized Biography, www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

11. Thomas, Gordon Enslaved, Pharos Books, 1991

12. Weinstein, Henry and Greg Miller "'Virtual' Child Porn Is Legal,
Court Says," Los Angeles Times, December 18, 1999

13. "Bush Budget Seeks Child Program Cuts," Los Angeles Times, March
24, 2001

14. Paul A. Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King (4:CV91-3037), United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska, Memorandum of Decision,
February 22, 1999
15. "The Child Sex Trade," A&E Investigative Reports
 
 
w1rebaby
16:58 / 08.09.01
I was vaguely thinking of perhaps saying something on this thread, but that enormous double cut-n-post has convinced me that I have entered the Rant Zone.

Did you never consider posting a link to the article? That sort of thing comes under the heading of "Wilful Board Vandalism" in my mind.
 
 
000
19:33 / 08.09.01
quote: by RAGEI don't think that pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. I think that pedophiles are born pedophiles, just like homosexuals are born homosexuals, just like necropihliacs are born necrophiliacs, etc. etc. etc.
Correct it’s a sexual preference, but we have entered a new era, the era of fear, of getting diseases. Plus the era of complete numbness for lots of people, by foods, by medications, by drugs and/or by alcohol or just numbness by to much input trough the media in general. There has been a rise in sexual child abuse as I have told the kids here before on Barb, this rise is still going steady and its frightening to say the least. This numbness seeks trills to stay awake, and for lots of men this means fucking tighter openings and with some drugs in their body a men will get horny by the weirdest things, allowed or not, wrong or not.

quote: Therefore, by reason of lack of consent, pedophilia shouldn't be accepted.

Nambla would love you for this line, they belong to the many peadophilian groups who are trying to convince the world, that all their little friends want to be in a sexual relationship with older men, all of their own free will. They even say, that they are actually saving these kids from starvation on the streets or from homes were they got abused by their fathers. Consent is a word that all of them like to use.

Consent = to give agreement, approval, or permission. Synonyms; approve, agree. Crossref Syn; accept, accede, assent.
Accede = to agree or to consent, assent. Synonyms; yield, assent, consent, acquiesce, comply, submit.
Crossref Syn; agree, come around, assent.
Acquiesce= to agree passively, comply, consent

So many words mean the same thing , so many behaviours can have the same thought, the word consent must have been invented by the perpetrator, for legally it means a lot but boiling to conviction it just means one thing, the victim did not get forced by the perpetrator.
Now how much force do you thing a mature man would need to ‘convince’ a child that he/she has to do what he says? How much force do you think is needed to make a kid do that what you want him/her to do when he/she is hungry, cold, afraid, already abused at home and roaming the streets in fear, a runaway or homeless child?


quote:BUT, peadophiles do not choose to be sexually turned on by 11 year old boys... just like gay men do not choose to be sexually turned on by other men.

But they choose to act it out themselves nobody forces them. They all know that fucking a little child or baby is wrong, deadly wrong. There is nothing wrong with being gay, there is every thing WRONG with being a peadophilian.

quote:Surly we can do more than tell pedophiles that they "sick" and "wrong."

Yes we can track them by their DNA, we can do lobotomy on them so they wont remember what turns them on sexually or we can simply shoot the fuckers ( that would solve many more world problems as well)

quote:In the little girl model post, someone mentioned that it was wrong for peadophiles to have a community to share pictures and ideas with like minded individuals.

That someone is right, or are you comparing them with stamp collectors etc?

quote:Pedophiles need their community just like we do.

NO, THEY DON”T!!!
quote:The pictures exist. That's a fact. Let the pedophiles swap away. They themselves (the picture swapers) are not hurting anyone.
So all the photos of kids come from air? Wake-up! Many peadophile rings request up to 10.000 images of sexual acts of or with children. They order according to their preference. These ‘picture swappers’ pay to see live acts of sexual child abuse over the internet. You say, if its against the child’s will than its wrong and its rape, but yet you say that these sick bastards are allowed to have their little swap heaven and swapping material. What you are saying is that the suppliers must go on with making these photos and videos, so the swappers can be happy. How many children/babies are being raped, sodomized, tied up, gangbanged, beaten, tortured or killed by their free will? These are the images that most peadophiles order, have and swap. Normal photos of commercial ads etc they don’t need to fear anything, collecting all the ads of pampers doesn’t get a peadophile in jail and they don’t need a secret hiding place to swap.
quote: The mothers who allow their children to pose for these pictures is another issue. Bad Parenting, it's called.
Almost all of these mother are just listening to their little angels who all want to be a movie star, model or new Britney. Its not bad parenting , its just naïve parenting. You think any of these fake/real agencies are telling these mothers they are peadophiles ? of course not.
quote:If the mothers AREN'T allowing this, it's ALSO another issue. Rape, it's called.
And lets not forget abduction.
quote:But here we're talking about the pedophile picture swappers, who are merely exchanging pictures with other individuals who share their sexual desires. The pedophile picture swappers who realize that they can't rape some little kid... no matter how much they desire to... because it's wrong.
Only about 20% don’t act out their sick preference because they are voyeurs and about 6 to 10% of them kill them selves. And believe me we have more peadophilans walking the earth than you realize. See the sexual urge of a man is very strong and some were down the road, he needs to fuck the object of his desire.
quote:Let them have their pictures.
NO!
quote: Let them have an underground network of sexual desire and community on the internet.
For as long as it takes to catch them for at least they are in the open ‘air’ which in the end will be their own trap.
quote:What ELSE do they have, but society telling them that they are sick perverts?
You have no idea who the real dangerous peadophilians are, now have you? Here we go again; The men ruling your banking system, the men ruling your governments, the men ruling your big corporates, your so called holy men the men of church, professors, teachers, doctors, psychologist, actors, singers and of course lets not forget our photographers. The lower class pedophilian will be happy working with children the whole day. And it’s the picture of the common peadophilian, the peadophilians in power use to dilute your mind. Understand that you need some cash to roam the world of the pedo’s and that you need to have a lot of power to be able to fuck a child and get away with it and that you need lots of money to be able to buy a child that you fuck to death especially if you wish to fuck little babies.
Rage, they have a lot and most enjoy a nice live , they are not some lonely wankers looking at photos, and they are sick perverts who need to die.
quote: Do you know how ALIENATED they must feel?
Why did you start this tread for real? You said “I've been wanting to have this debate for a while, actually.” Why? You are advocating in the weirdest way the safety of peadophilians, you are concerned about the well being of peadophilians hardly mentioning the children who suffer tremendously every day until they are to old or until they are dead.
Who the fuck cares about how alienated peadophilians feel? Except peadophilians .
How alienated do you think all these abused children feel every day of their lives?
How do you think all the children feel on a daily basis when being in school were they have to learn and pretend all is well while they are hurting in places all over their bodies?
How do you think these children feel when walking the streets next to their abusers and nobody knows while inside they are screaming for help and nobody hears them?
How much pain do you think a little child feels when being fucked by paedophiles?
How do you think a child feels when it gets tied up and gagged and then fucked in every hole of his/her body?How do you think a child feels when taken into a room with only adults knowing it going to be abused and it can not escape?

quote:Imagine yourself to be sexually turned on by a 9 year old boy. Just imagine. What would YOU do?

Why don’t you go all the way?
Imagine yourself being turned on by a baby while changing his nappy. Just imagine. What would YOU do?
Now lets take the other side.
Imagine yourself being this little child or toddler, you are being tied up or just held. Imagine this big man entering you and you scream in pain and you want to escape and you scream but nobody listens for people outside on the streets just think one little spoiled brat not getting its way, no help only fear and pain.

Who is the alienated one? Who is the victim? Who needs help and a safe heaven? WHO?
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply