Nifty.org - Pedophilia Central?

[blackbeltninja]

^I wonder how they'd rank popularity-wise amongst the common man - straight missionary stuff, incest (gay or straight or bi, even), pederasty and others.

Still, I'm not sure that incest between adults is legal, or is that only breeding through incest? At least down here in .za they can lock you up if you knob a close relative - far as I am aware, at any rate.

-d-

 

[blackbeltninja]

I'm disturbed at the fact that so many people don't seem to have a problem with pedophilia.

A world that can ban Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird from schools and libraries can allow this?

Personally I think banning books is retarded. You can't censor thoughts, so why censor thoughts transferred to paper?

Completely stupid.

-d-

 

[pjlikesporn]

I and several others have given strong arguments against it, but I have read nothing but feeble arguments for it, and 'Free Speech' simply doesn't cut it. Thousands of children are sexually molested and/or murdered every year. The only thing different about Nifty is that the children grow up to live happily ever after and become cock-craving sex maniacs.

First, I think you're too quick to dismiss the free speech argument. In and of itself, free speech is a vital issue. Even if the stories do promote pedophilia, banning them raises several other issues: 1) Who gets to decide what gets banned? 2) How far can they go? In the US, where much of our leadership considers homosexuality as perverted, if not more perverted, than pedophilia, permitting the banning of such fiction could lead to the banning of all adult gay fiction--perhaps even gay activities. (We're quick to judge in the US.)

Second, we have discussed the idea that these stories might allow pedophiles to gratify themselves and thus satisfy their warped cravings, thus protecting children. While this is far from a proven premise, it's certainly one that, if true, would strongly suggest against banning such stories.

 

[Just_Believe18]

I see where you are coming from, DS_Writr. It is a slippery slope to censor erotic written material. Where do you draw the line at what is age appropriate to read for erotic pleasure.

It seems, however, that JUB has adopted such a line. 18+ age erotic material only. Sure, the stories are limited to high school seniors and beyond, but what can you do? The lower the age bracket, the darker the crowd. JUB is a porn site, and it strictly maintains 18 year-old material whether it is pictures or text. And that seems to work.

Should it be applied to Nifty.org? I'm not sure. On one side, I see a slippery slope of censorship that would literally gut the site of thousands of stories. On the other hand, I see an unhealthy environment that is fostering pedophilia. I wouldn't be surprised, if a lot of pedophiles have come together, exchanged pictures and videos, and encouraged abuse because Nifty.org has fostered such a community. Isn't the world at war against Child Pornography and Abuse? Then why are we only cutting the weed when we need to pull it from its roots?

 

[teh_nathan]

Well, in my opinion (I'll watch as many people ignore me), it's just a haven for anyone to write anything about anything, including illegal (and morally wrong) activities.

The problem when we deal with "what's morally correct" is that morals are completely subjective, so where do you draw the line?

nifty would be a good site if some boundaries and rules were established.

Just_Believe18 is right on the money, and I agree with him.

 

[Yves]

In a similar way, these offensive stories are there but don't necessarily need to cause someone to act anymoreso than they don't act upon other writings.

Yes. Most adults distinguish fiction from reality but pedophiles are in a different category. This is not a question of personal preference and it´s not my plan to demonize those affected. Pedophilia is a mental disease and pedophiles do not see reality the same way as an average person does.

That said, there is a difference between a crime against a person and the idea of a crime against a person......literature is freedom of speech and not the same as an actual act between real persons.
(.....)
Its the heavy duty of people to tolerate a broad range of free speech and expression. And its sometimes a challenge to one's personal sensibilities, morality and taste. But thats what makes it such a valuable and powerful freedom.

I agree in principle but is freedom of speech (and the fear of censorship) the only principle at stake here?
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Some minor limitations are in place in addition to self-regulation or self-censorship (No under-age sex stories at JUB....). At the same time through American history not all groups have enjoyed equal freedom of speech (Think African American communities in the 1950s). It seems simplistic to reduce the discussion at just one principle and not consider other principles at stake.

Literature is freedom of speech but local regulations make a difference (In some European countries, "holocaust denial" is a criminal offence same with "encouragement of terrorism" in the UK). Human trafficking, hate crimes, child pornography and terrorism are some problems that are generating discussion on potential limitations to freedom of speech.

A parallel has been made between books (fiction) and Internet, but there are a few differences. An Internet website is not only a place to post or read erotic stories (It´s not just an "online library"). It´s also a network that can facilitate crime (organized pedophile rings). What are the protections in place to avoid this type of abuse? Should we just forget about it in the name of freedom of speech? Is self-regulation the only solution? No guidelines?

The problem in some cases is not the story per se but the mental health status of the author/audience. An alternative to consider is the discussion of potential restrictions to freedom of speech in the case of diagnosed pedophiles.

pjlikesporn made a couple of interesting points:

First, I think you're too quick to dismiss the free speech argument. In and of itself, free speech is a vital issue. Even if the stories do promote pedophilia, banning them raises several other issues: 1) Who gets to decide what gets banned? 2) How far can they go? (..)

Any attempt of censorship will encounter significant resistance. At the same time some societies are changing standards. The European Union has recently adopted a new definition of child pronography that includes computer generated child porn (a possibility not available when freedom of speech was originally formulated). According to this new definition:

"Child pornography" shall mean pornographic material that visually depicts or represents:
(i) a real child involved or engaged in sexually explicit conduct, including lascivious exhibition of the genitals or the pubic area of a child; or
(ii) a real person appearing to be a child involved or engaged in the conduct mentioned in (i); or
(iii) realistic images of a non-existent child involved or engaged in the conduct mentioned in (i)

In some ways some of the principles we have are behind new technologies. Computer generated porn or "audio porn" were not alternatives available 200 years ago.

Second, we have discussed the idea that these stories might allow pedophiles to gratify themselves and thus satisfy their warped cravings, thus protecting children. While this is far from a proven premise, it's certainly one that, if true, would strongly suggest against banning such stories.

There is no scientific agreement in terms of the benefits of unsupervised exchange of stories in Internet in the case of pedophiles. Sharing as a part of supervised treatment is a much better option for a better management of diagnosed cases of pedophilia. Mental health experts are recommending restrictions to Internet access in severe cases of pedophilia (in addition to physical environment: shools, parks, etc.)

 

[gsdx]

First, I think you're too quick to dismiss the free speech argument.

You must remember that it is the American 'free speech' of which you speak. The rest of the world does not necessarily agree with it, nor abide by it.

And, if free speech is such an important issue, how about addressing my thought about banning Huck Finn?

 

[greaves]

I blame the parents.

 

[pjlikesporn]

You must remember that it is the American 'free speech' of which you speak. The rest of the world does not necessarily agree with it, nor abide by it.

And, if free speech is such an important issue, how about addressing my thought about banning Huck Finn?

Just because the rest of the world doesn't follow the American free speech jurisprudence doesn't mean that the same issues are not implicated by the suppression of speech. Controlling the distribution of printed fictional material comes dangerously close to thought suppression--the worst enemy of liberty and individualism.

The banning of Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird entirely proves my point. Once you do permit someone to say what others can and cannot read (and correspondingly write), look at the richness you begin to lose. (To my knowledge, these books are not actually banned in their entirety, simply from school libraries and curricula. But the point stands nonetheless.)

 

[gsdx]

The banning of Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird entirely proves my point. Once you do permit someone to say what others can and cannot read (and correspondingly write), look at the richness you begin to lose. (To my knowledge, these books are not actually banned in their entirety, simply from school libraries and curricula. But the point stands nonetheless.)

I don't understand how one 'right' is allowed at the expense of another person's 'right'. Both Huck Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird are being banned because of the word 'nigger', but Mark Twain wrote in the language of his time and Harper Lee wrote in the language of the era of the story. I have watched the movie and read the book, and in both, Black people were treated with the utmost respect by Harper Lee. The only person I can recall who used that word regularly was killed by Boo Radley.

Extend this into modern-day KKK and Neo-Nazis. They stand on street corners in the US and say worse things than were ever read in any of those books, yet it is their right to do so. What about the rights of the Blacks and Jews to live in peace without wondering who's going fry them in their beds.

Continue that to children. Where is the protection for them when pedopilia is condoned by those stories at Nifty? How can one right supercede so many others?

You call it 'censorship'. I call it 'protection and equality'.

 

[pjlikesporn]

Continue that to children. Where is the protection for them when pedopilia is condoned by those stories at Nifty? How can one right supercede so many others?

This is all very true, but it requires assuming that these stories do indeed harm children. That assumption may be entirely valid--many in this thread have argued that publishing such stories riles up pedophiles' frustrations and that it makes their errant behavior seem acceptable.

But it is also possible that these fictional stories cause absolutely no harm to children. As others have argued, these stories may reduce harm to children by giving pedophiles a venue in which to exercise their frustrations harmlessly. If we accept this assumption, then the stories in fact cause no harm--or even mitigate harm. In that case, then the analogy falls apart because no child is being harmed--no child needs protection.

Either way, I think we need to acknowledge this issue before we go on to accept the dangers of limiting speech, especially speech that is easily ignored. This is true whether we are discussing free speech within or outside of the US.

 

[gsdx]

If we accept this assumption, then the stories in fact cause no harm--or even mitigate harm. In that case, then the analogy falls apart because no child is being harmed--no child needs protection.

But they are, and they do. Shouldn't everything possible be done to protect them?

Airport and border security has been beefed up over the past few years. Why? Because people might be hurt by terrorists. American rights are being protected. Yet, children could possibly be protected from pedophiles by eliminating the stories.

It has been argued that visual porn is illegal because the children in the photos are real. The children in the stories may not be real, but they are very real in the minds on the readers, and what goes on in the stories is equally real and exciting. Pedophiles get off on child pornography. They're also getting off on the porn at Nifty. Who is to say that the stories don't drive them into action just as the photos do?

Why, then, is one illegal and the other protected under 'free speech'? Whatever arguments either of us can make doesn't lessen the fact that many of the stories at Nifty are 'child porn'. It should be more important that we protect the children. When it comes to pedophiles, children have no say in the matter.

 

[gsdx]

Cars are taken off the road because the brakes might fail. Pills are removed from the shelves because they might cause heart attacks. Seat belts are put into cars and it's made law that they wear them because the driver might be in an accident and be shoved through the windshield. We put child-proof lids on Aspirin. We make cribs safe. We put children in car seats. But an 8-year-old boy can bend over for Daddy and it is okay.

Are the rights and lives and future of innocent children less important than the right of 'free speech'?

There is nothing more I can say on this matter without repeating myself ad infinitum. Concerning the original topic of this thread, I believe Nifty is a haven for pedophiles, and no-one has given any theory otherwise except for 'free speech' and the possibility that the stories no effect on pedophiles.

I, for one, believe that the rights of a child are far more important than any single right granted to an adult. They are the innocent ones. Adults should know better, and those who don't deserve any punishment they get for their actions.

 

[Green_Man_007]

I blame the parents.

...or the older brothers, or the super-hot uncles who visit for a few weekends a year.

​

 

[gsdx]

Of course, an 8-year-old boy bending over for daddy isn't okay.

But is an 8-year-old boy bending over for daddy when its a story?

It is tricky because this would not even be a discussion if we were talking about photos.

Is writing the equivalent of taking a photo though? A picture is worth a thousand words...and yet, are a thousand words, a picture?

A good writer can make you believe that aliens exist which spring out of eggs and attach themselves to your face. A good writer can make you believe that the butler did it. A good writer can make you believe that orcs and goblins and wizards and elves and dwarfs and hobbits really exist.

A thousand words can create many pictures.

However, it doesn't take a good writer to make someone excited enough to actually have an orgasm. People who are disgusted by beastiality don't read those stories. People who are disgusted by incest don't read those stories, either. Only those who enjoy that type of story read them. And that goes for the stories involving pedophilia as well. People who are not turned on by those stories don't read them, which means that pedophiles are the ones reading them, and they are encouraging the writers to fulfill their needs by asking them to write more.

Are the stories keeping the pedophiles off the streets and away from the children? Are they encouraging the pedophiles to get out on the streets and entrap a child to fulfill his desires caused by the stories? I don't know. Do you?

But I ask you. Is it worth the risk to the children in order to find out?

 

[Green_Man_007]

When I was around 7, among my fantasies was being adopted by Batman and Robin, to be part of their crimefighting team. After we'd return to the Bat Cave, all sweaty from thwarting villains, we'd rip each other's costumes off and I could suck on Bruce Wayne's cock (with his mask still on) while Dick Grayson did all sorts of fun things around my crotch and ass.

(Another fantasy was being taken prisoner by Nazis and sent to Stalag 13 where Colonel Hogan would fuck me after Sgt Shultz finished his rounds.)

Does my sharing that make me an enabler to pedophile imaginations?

Probably.

Should my free-speech right to reveal my young desires online be prohibited because there's at least one more boner out there reading it?

NO,....

....because I refuse to be responsible for anyone else's inherent criminal urges.

They don't need my psychotherapist's file notes in order to get excited anyway.



(Besides, I'm well-adjusted in my tastes as an adult to know if Adam West and Burt Ward showed up at my door today offering a little fun, I'd decline. Gimme Clooney or Kilmer, without any Batman mask.)

 

[blackbeltninja]

GSDX, if what you say is true - and maybe it is - then we get back on the trail of banning ALL visual pornography and erotica as well as ALL written stuff. Because if a story about sex with minors can drive a paedophile over the edge, then a story about sex in general can drive a rapist over the edge.

This latter part has been an argument from the anti-porn lobbies for many years, of course.

Still, if one truth in either of these even might exist, we have a duty to ban the lot of it. Anyone keen to make that announcement?

I believe in one set and general rule. None of this "it's wrong in this scenario but right in this one" nonsense. If one should be allowed, all should be allowed. If one should be banned, all should be banned. It's the same with gay guys calling each other faggot quite happily and then getting riled when a straight guy uses the term in a derogatory way - should be one stroke for all folks, far as I'm concerned.

-d-

 

[Green_Man_007]

Ban the shower scene from "The Covenant," too, because even if the actors were over 18, it was portraying naked asses of characters who were minors.

 

[gsdx]

The same old arguments. The same old defenses. I thought we were discussing pedopilia and children, but no-one can seem to get beyond the 'Free Speech'. I want to protect the children. You want to protect Free Speech. This thread was at a stalemate from the very first post, and nothing whatsoever will be gained by me discussing it further.

 

[gsdx]

I would like to add that it has been a genuine pleasure to discuss such an important topic with all of you without dragging the discussion into the mud. We have all been very civil with each other and I don't recall seeing a single name being tossed at someone else. All debates at Jub should go this smoothly.

Hugs to all of you who participated.