Nifty.org - Pedophilia Central?

[Just_Believe18]

Most people here know what site I am talking about. I spent a lot of adolescent years reading through http://www.nifty.org. It is essentially an online porn story collection.

Anyway, for years I have found myself filtering through most of the stories I come across, particularly with the incest section. They even have sections entitled "Young Friends" (stories about 8-12 year olds having hardcore adult sex where the writer exaggerates how functional a pre-pubescent penis can be) and "Adult Youth" focusing on cross-generational relationships (and you can figure out how that goes).

What is your impression of this? There are a lot of hot stories on Nifty, but there are also hundreds of stories I personally just can't stomach and click the "back" button as soon as I see "12" or "my 11 year-old son." Do you believe Nifty.org is a haven for disturbed men to write/read about pedophilia? And how come child pornography laws do not apply to this particular adult site? Free speech? If Free Speech, then why is child pornography prosecuted while other 18 and over sites are protected under the 1st Amendment?

 

[NedNickerson]

My understanding is that technically you can write about it and talk about it, but you can't show it. That's why you can have chat rooms about it, but as soon as you exchange photographs with another person, you're in trouble...

However, a lot of sites get away with it by posting disclaimers that the models are over age 18, etc. But, to look at some of them, you'd think they just sprouted their first pubic hair this morning...

 

[Just_Believe18]

If such is the case, do you believe the law should extend to this kind of material? I mean, just look over some of these stories. Do you feel Nifty is fostering an environment that would encourage child abuse like this?

 

[Riverrick]

If such is the case, do you believe the law should extend to this kind of material?

I don't know. Shouldn't we have some evidence that it really does contribute to child abuse before we restrict free speech?

I've seem those stories and they surprised me also. But they don't involve any real people. They're only words on a screen. And I don't know that they ever become more than that. But I guess if I was a parent, they would make me pretty uncomfortable.

 

[gsdx]

I don't know. Shouldn't we have some evidence that it really does contribute to child abuse before we restrict free speech?

Grown up men having sex with 5-year-old boys is 'free speech'?

I used to go there a few years ago when I first found the link here on Jub. Recently, like Just_Believe18, I was constantly clicking the 'back' button.

To many crimes are hidden under and protected by 'free speech', and Nifty is getting to be another one of them.

 

[snapcat]

JB, I agree with you. I've had a lot of fun on that site but I just can't stomach the kinds of stories that you're talking about. And yes, I think it very well may be becoming ped central - if it's not already.

I'm not an expert on the law, but one doesn't have to be a law expert to rule on good taste.

 

[Riverrick]

To many crimes are hidden under and protected by 'free speech', and Nifty is getting to be another one of them.

What exactly is the crime? If you put your imaginary thoughts down on a piece of paper, that's a crime?

This is like junk science where things that sound like they may be true are given equal footing with things that are proven true.

 

[Homoerectus]

I agree. Any depiction of sex with children is sick. If an adult man can't build a relationship with another adult, he is a sicko. I can tolerate many things but pedophilia is not one of them. However, I believe it is free speech to write fiction about it.

 

[Green_Man_007]

What exactly is the crime? If you put your imaginary thoughts down on a piece of paper, that's a crime?
.

Exactly

Wanting to rob a bank and/or writing about an imaginary scenario of robbing a bank is not the same as larceny.

Personally, I love Nifty.org's incest section, but only where all cocks involved are adult ones.

(Yes, I check out the asses on my cousins and uncles)

As to why anyone would have pedophiliac fantasies, I cannot put myself inside the twisted maze of desire motivations in their heads.

The Authoritarian section's often hot, too, but sometimes disturbing, because I can't fathom committing oneself to the slave lifestyle for more than a weekend.

 

[MadeUpName27]

Yes!
Ban Them!
Arrest them!
Close them down!
Burn them at the stake!
They're EVIL I tell you! EVIL!!!

- or -

We could embrace freedom of speech and thought and make our own choices.

Don't click on the "Adult/Youth" or "Young Friends" sections at Nifty if you aren't into stories about little kids.

Don't click on the "Authoritarian" or "Incest" sections if you aren't into stories about spanking or family affairs.

While you're at it, don't click on the "Sci/Fi" section if getting head from E.T. isn't your cup of tea.

Lighten up, they're only stories...

 

[pjlikesporn]

My understanding is that technically you can write about it and talk about it, but you can't show it. That's why you can have chat rooms about it, but as soon as you exchange photographs with another person, you're in trouble...

What is illegal (in the US) is the actual use of a child for pornography. However, it is not only legal to talk about it, but one can even "show" it so long as there are no actual children used--that is, virtual porn or whatever. I'm guessing this fine line is going to get more and more controversial as technology improves.

Personally, I think it's pretty revolting, but I'm curious if increasing a pedophile's access to virtual child porn would make them less likely to act on their impulses against real children. Or would it simply increase their affinity to children? Probably a question better left to psychologists, etc.

 

[Yves]

If such is the case, do you believe the law should extend to this kind of material? I mean, just look over some of these stories. Do you feel Nifty is fostering an environment that would encourage child abuse like this?

Good question. Under federal law child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors. As I understand, written child pornography is not part of the standard legal definition (Any lawyers here?). Other countries include written material in the definition of child pornography though. New Zealand seems to be an example based on adidas4boyspunk post.

The distinction between fiction and reality, freedom of thought and free speech are some of the arguments used to defend the right to access and share written accounts. Personally, I have some concerns about the consequences of written child pornography. I´d like to know more about the scientific evidence available regarding the exposure to written child pornography in the case of diagnosed pedophiles. The assumption so far is that fiction/fantasies are different from reality. We all have fantasies and those are just mere thoughts not concrete actions. Is it the same in the case of those diagnosed as pedophiles? Do pedophiles handle the distinction between fantasy and reality as effectively as non-pedophiles? How helpful is for a pedophile to share rape fantasies (outside supervised treatment or a clinical space)? Are those fantasies neutral for the mental health and prognosis of pedophiles??

Internet provides opportunities for networking and access to written pornography raise some questions. Putting your imaginary thoughts on paper is not a crime per se but what happens if a website acts as a reinforcer/facilitator of behaviors? Are we, as a society, providing conditions that reinforce pedophilia in some degree? Is the exchange of written child pornography a recommended measure for the mental health of pedophiles? Is sharing pedophile thoughts via written accounts neutral??

Some additional restrictions should be discussed based on the scientific evidence available (We have to keep in mind that the reported success rate of pedophilia is very low and for that reason the discussion of potential reinforcers seems critical). It might be interesting to know the experience of countries that have regulations against written child pornography.

 

[blackbeltninja]

First up - look, guys, nifty has many sections. There is a section full of younger stories, but it's not the only section. No point in banning the whole site because of one dubious corner, is there?

Secondly - the thing is, though, if child pornography can't be written about, where is the line drawn? Could we talk in here about the first time we had an orgasm as kids, or would that become child porn? I know the mods get concerned when someone uses a picture of himself taken when he was a kid as an avatar because JUB is an adult site. I just wonder exactly what might be or not be allowed to even crack a mention - all those posts from JUBbers about touching a friend's bits and pieces when they were both 14 or whatever... we don't want to find ourselves suddenly all becoming sex offenders because we said we started to j/o at 13, do we?

-d-

 

[1gayguy]

I read stories on Nifty everyday. I choose not to read stories in several catagories. Those being Adult/youth, Athority(sp) and Urination. I do read stories in the Young friends section however. I try to find stories in there that remind of my own youth.
I stick mostly with Adult Friends, Beginnings, College, High School and Young Friends.These catagories are all in the gay section. They have other section such as Bisexual, Lesbian, Beastiality and Transgendered.
I choose not to read stories in catagories that don't interest me.
If one is offended by stories in some of the catagories , don't read them. Do the stories cause people to act on thoughts they may have? Who knows.
I don't believe the whole site should be shut down because of a catagory of stories that some find offensive.
Just my two cents

 

[sb]

It is fiction. If you don't like it, don't read it.

There is a massive difference between a made up story and pictures showing children in sexual acts.

 

[Aussieguy01]

Still though it does cross a line, while i completley disagree with the storys we are discussing all the ones i have read so far are about adult men . The moderaters of nifty should delete any stories that feture people below the age of 18

 

[sb]

The moderaters of nifty should delete any stories that feture people below the age of 18

people below the age of 18 have sex. people fantasize about things that they would never actually do.

people should not to be told what they can and can't write about or what they can read. we are censored enough as it is.

 

[gsdx]

What exactly is the crime? If you put your imaginary thoughts down on a piece of paper, that's a crime?

First of all, 'Freedom of Speech' as is often talked about here is American Freedom of Speech. Other countries have less freedoms. Canada has laws against writing and talking about hatred (i.e. Rev. Phelps). Many Americans see this as censorship, but it keeps the KKK and the Neo-Nazis from wandering the streets and protects me and other gays from having to listen to the insane rantings of people like Fred Phelps.

If writing about pedophilia isn't such a big deal, why is JUB so worried about it in the Story Forum and throughout the rest of the forum? Even talking about someone who is under 18 falls under very serious scrutiny and posting pictures is a supreme 'no-no'. Remember the little guy in the grey Speedo?

I wrote a story in the Story Forum in which the abuse and molestation of a young teen was vital to the story. I had to clear it with JUB before I could post it, and the only way I got away with it was that I did not glamourize it, nor did I condone it. Yet, that little story with a few lines about under-aged sex could have caused JUB some very serious legal problems.

The difference in Nifty is that the children are consenting to have sex with adults and, in many cases from those I have seen, have actually instigated it. Children are naturally curious, but they have no sex drive. They're not about to instigate something they know nothing about, and they're certainly not going to be able to do all the things that are written.

Using the argument that writing about robbing banks is a 'cop out' and is one example out of many which have been used over and over again in arguments about protecting the Freedom of Speech.

In 1993, a book called 'Hit Man', printed by Paladin Press, came under fire when its step-by-step 'How To' was used to murder a mother and her disabled son and his nurse. The murderer, hired by the estranged father who needed his son's disabled money, followed the 'Hit Man' book to commit the murder.

Paladin Press came under fire and was sued. Their argument was that they never had any intention of anyone ever actually using the book to commit murder. Their argument was that publishers who publish cook books never expect people to actually cook the meals. Perhaps not, but cook books are written for people who want to cook meals. 'Hit Man' was written for people who want to kill people and not get caught.

http://www.capital.net/~phuston/HITMAN3.html

Pedophilia is a crime. Claiming it as 'fiction' and, therefore, protected under Freedom of Speech is ridiculus. Timothy McVeigh built his bombs from 'How To' instruction which I believe he either found on the net or in books. He killed a few hundred people, including some children. How many thousands of children are killed or traumatized each year by pedophiles? Protecting it under 'Free Speech' is legalizing the crime.

 

[blackbeltninja]

^I hear you, GSDX. I wonder what might happen if the method of the crime is detailed in a newspaper report and someone copycats it - could the newspaper be sued? Scary if it can...

As I said with my post, though, where can a line be drawn if we are just talking about what we did as kids when we all under-age? I don't want to just be chatting to my mates at dinner or something and be hauled off by the cops!

-d-

 

[gsdx]

^I hear you, GSDX. I wonder what might happen if the method of the crime is detailed in a newspaper report and someone copycats it - could the newspaper be sued? Scary if it can...

That is a bit different. The newspapers had nothing whatsoever to do with the original crime. They merely reported it.

In the case of 'Hit Man', the book was commissioned by Paladin Press. They weren't reporting anything. They were giving people the means to commit the perfect crime. To say that they never intended anyone to actually buy the book and follow the instructions is ludicrous.

It is my understanding that the KKK or the Neo-Nazis can gather on street corners in the United States and spout all the hatred they want against other Americans and it is protected under Free Speech. They can stand there in their white sheets and hoods, or in their uniforms with their hands raised in the 'Heil' salute and carry placards with the words "Kill All Niggers!" or "Kill All Jews!" (my apologies for those disgusting words, but they are necessary to make my point) and get away with it because they are not really out there killing Jews or Blacks. They hide not only under Freedom of Speech, but Freedom of Religion as well. They mock everything America stands for, and it's their Constitutional right to do so.

Child pornography is a crime. Having sex with children is a crime. Nifty is filled with hundreds of such stories, catering to the thousands of pedophiles who are sitting at their keyboard blasting load after load whilst reading them. But, since they are only a fictional story, it is protected under Free Speech. That's like the United States handing Jeffrey Dahmer a new set of carving knives and telling him, "Have fun, Jeff. Just don't get caught."