Nifty.org - Pedophilia Central?

[Ninja108]

16-17 year old in these stories is borderline for me. Any story younger than that is pushing it.

 

[gsdx]

yes, I support if Nifty bans underage story. But before you go hating Nifty, think about how you felt when you're just a horny underage teenager!

Hell, I was 13 yo when I learned how to j/o MYSELF. And a year later, I imagined myself getting sexual with my male math teacher.... Did it mean, I tresspass the law when I was 13 coz I imagined my male teacher f***ed me???

There is a huge difference between a 13-year-old who is experiencing puberty and suddenly finding his body being ruled by very powerful hormones and a very young boy who still calls his father's (or brother's) dick a 'pee-pee'.

It's not uncommon for 13-year-olds to have sex with each other in real life. It happens. It has always happened, and it will always happen. For the most part, it is ignored. It only becomes a problem when one of the partners is of legal age. It may not be paedophilia, but its legality certainly is questionable. And it depends greatly upon the sexes of the 'partners' even if consent is mutual. A 35-year-old man with a 14-year-old boy is completely unacceptable in society. A 35-year-old woman with a 14-year-old boy is barely frowned upon and rarely punished.

I know one guy who is an adult now who was having regular sex when he was 12. I know another who was having regular sex with his female teacher when he was 14. I also have read about several male teachers in the area who lives and families have been ruined because a teenaged male student claimed that the teacher 'touched him inappropriately' even though an investigation proved otherwise. The stigma stuck. I've not heard of any case involving a female teacher.

Is it paedophilia? No. In all cases where the younger people give their consent, they give it because they know what sex is. They know what their bodies are for and they know how to use them in order to give them the pleasure they crave. Is it legal? As long as rape is not involved, it's not usually considered illegal.

Should it be in stories? That's the $64,000 question. I can accept it because I know people who have experienced it in their youths and are suffering no ill effects as a result.

However, I have a serious problem with stories involving double-digit aged men having sex with single-digit boys. In real life, such incidents rarely, if ever, have little impact on the youth. In most cases, the boys are scarred for life.

Should such stories be in Nifty? I personally don't think so, but I have been told often enough that it is 'free speech' and it's not paedophilia or child porn because it doesn't involve real children.

Incest happens. It always has and it always will. It's a fact of life. And it's also a fact of life that many gay men find the idea appealing. That's why there are so many stories in the 'incest' category at Nifty. But it also caters to paedophiles. That's why there are so many stories involving eager little boys.

Incidentally, the same arguments apply to the 'Adult/Youth' category. Personal opinions aside, it is still 'free speech' and it's mere fantasy.

As I said in an earlier post, there is always the back button for those who find a story they don't want to read. The story is there for those readers who DO want to read it.

 

[mygaybuffet]

No -- not one person has mentioned the heart of this debate, though a number have alluded to it: the heart is human beings still in their formative years, persons universally recognized as needing aid and guidance in building themselves into whole and strong people.

It's undeniable that Nifty's stories are contributing to the sexual abuse of children -- it's impossible for that to not be the case. That alone should make you want to deal with them the way you propose for other sexual offenders.

They're probably contributing to the safety of a few children, too, by providing a fantasy outlet for a few men who then don't act out. But the web is not the place for that!

As a former educator, however briefly, I had one principle pounded into me: whatever you do, teaches. By allowing this material on the web, we as a society are teaching. So, what is the lesson? That's easy: that it's okay to subject pre-pubescents to sexual activity, for which they are not equipped.

That's a direct contradiction of the lesson those kids need to learn in order to be whole individuals when they grow up -- that they own themselves. The stories teach that underage kids are fair game because adults have power and might makes right. They teach that children are objects which exist for the pleasure of adults who want to abuse them. They teach that children are victims, prey for whoever wants to be a predator.

That is not acceptable -- this material is an offense against the very foundations of morality.


Is some pedophilia acceptable in a story? Perhaps. Here are some plot lines in which it could be:

• young man was abused as a child and struggles with those demons in order to be free to love
• young woman who was abused as a child seeks to dispel her inner demons by becoming a private investigator tracking down pedophiles and bringing them to justice
• father goes to borrow a tool from his neighbor, only to discover that neighbor using his eleven-year old son for sex; the father shoots the neighbor with the nail gun he went to borrow; he goes to trial and the jury finds it justifiable
• plumber who visits the house regularly begins sexually using the nine-year old twins, a boy and girl; when they learn he is coming again, they plot to arrange an accident with chemicals under the sink; he doesn't die but is turned into a vegetable, barely able to care for himself
• boy joins the SAS (gotta get the Brits in here) and becomes a highly decorated elite of the elite in special operations, especially urban; during one operation he confronts a child huddled crying in a closet; he is hit by a flashback of himself in a similar place, after being raped by a salesman; he leaves the military and embarks on his own private war to kill pedophiles; after his thirty-ninth kill, he is caught by an Interpol agent, who after a struggle with his conscience allows the hero to make his fortieth kill; instead of being prosecuted, he is recruited to go after an international ring of pedophiles

Those would be acceptable. Anything so much as suggesting approval or glorifying sex with pre-pubescent kids is vile.

I'll add one other plot type that could be acceptable:

man discovers he's a pedophile when he comes within inches of acting out; terrified of being revealed, he avoids going for therapy, but instead embarks on a quest to deal with it himself; in the course of over a decade of struggle, through which he is reduced to poverty, he discovers balance and becomes whole, enough so that he goes on to become very well-to-do, and a mentor to struggling pedophiles, to whom he gives one absolutely inviolable instruction: never, ever associate with anyone young enough you couldn't take him to a bar and have a drink together

You've made some very convincing points, but who appointed you to decide what glories or condemns pedophilliac literature. Free speech!

 

[eddielee]

Nifty has a lot of well written stories that do not include children. I think it's easy to avoid objectional material. I don't avoid the sight because it contains some stories that I find upsetting.

 

[Kulindahr]

You've made some very convincing points, but who appointed you to decide what glories or condemns pedophilliac literature. Free speech!

No, it's not free speech, it's incitement to rape.

If this is free speech, writing stories that make people who assassinate the president into heroes should be "free speech". Write one, put it on the web, and see what happens.


The mere existence of these stories is bad enough. But the fact that there are pedophiles out there reading them is sufficient to prove they are harming kids. If just one pedophile acts on those stories (more likely, hundreds have), then the authors are accessory to child sexual abuse, rape, sexual assault, and more -- and where they belong is prison.

This isn't a matter of personal preference or opinion, it's a matter of known harm: pedophilic literature stimulates a good portion of pedophiles to act out. So anyone writing such stories is implicitly saying, "I want adults to sexually assault little kids." It isn't allowable to beg off responsibility because "That's not why I wrote it"; the results of doing so are known, so the author knows in advance what he's doing. It's no different than lighting a campfire where there's dry grass and brush, then going off to pick berries, and try to get off being charged with setting the forest fire that results by saying you didn't mean to -- it doesn't matter whether you meant to, the reality is that you destroyed trees and wildlife.


I hope you oppose hate speech laws, hate crime laws, and laws against discrimination, because if this is "free speech", so are all those.

 

[himeros]

No, it's not free speech, it's incitement to rape.

I also dislike underage j/o materials but your wording kind of scares me, considering it comes from GLBT community. "Incitement to rape" is the exact word used by the pornphobic religious to ban porn in my country!!! Yeah, in my country ALL kinds of porn (vids, pix, even text - gay/st7/bi/anything sexual) is banned. They also yelled for kids protection BUT the adults who like adult porn are also become the victim of anti-porn bill here. Basically, the pornphobic religious think ALL kinds of porn incite people to RAPE. They say, you watch/read porn, you get horny, you rape.

That's stupid! I'm sure you'll say that. But thats exactly what you wrote about pedo stories. Look, I'm NOT defending pedo stories, I'm just trying to be objective. And I'm honestly scared by the way you write... Are you sure you're a member of GLBT coz you talk like those pornphobic people?

 

[gsdx]

Is some pedophilia acceptable in a story? Perhaps. Here are some plot lines in which it could be:

• young man was abused as a child and struggles with those demons in order to be free to love

Those would be acceptable. Anything so much as suggesting approval or glorifying sex with pre-pubescent kids is vile.

I wrote exactly that type of story and it was approved by Autolycus. (You've probably already read it.) The age of the abused was incidental to the story and was really mentioned only in passing, but it was absolutely vital to the outcome of the story. That's why Autolycus allowed it.

Demons? Oh, indeed there were demons.

 

[mygaybuffet]

I also dislike underage j/o materials but your wording kind of scares me, considering it comes from GLBT community. "Incitement to rape" is the exact word used by the pornphobic religious to ban porn in my country!!! Yeah, in my country ALL kinds of porn (vids, pix, even text - gay/st7/bi/anything sexual) is banned. They also yelled for kids protection BUT the adults who like adult porn are also become the victim of anti-porn bill here. Basically, the pornphobic religious think ALL kinds of porn incite people to RAPE. They say, you watch/read porn, you get horny, you rape.

That's stupid! I'm sure you'll say that. But thats exactly what you wrote about pedo stories. Look, I'm NOT defending pedo stories, I'm just trying to be objective. And I'm honestly scared by the way you write... Are you sure you're a member of GLBT coz you talk like those pornphobic people?

One does have to take that into account!

Your [Kulindahr] writing though is nothing short of brilliance!

However your argument is flawed:

No, it's not free speech, it's incitement to rape.

If this is free speech, writing stories that make people who assassinate the president into heroes should be "free speech". Write one, put it on the web, and see what happens.


The mere existence of these stories is bad enough. But the fact that there are pedophiles out there reading them is sufficient to prove they are harming kids. If just one pedophile acts on those stories (more likely, hundreds have), then the authors are accessory to child sexual abuse, rape, sexual assault, and more -- and where they belong is prison.

This isn't a matter of personal preference or opinion, it's a matter of known harm: pedophilic literature stimulates a good portion of pedophiles to act out. So anyone writing such stories is implicitly saying, "I want adults to sexually assault little kids." It isn't allowable to beg off responsibility because "That's not why I wrote it"; the results of doing so are known, so the author knows in advance what he's doing. It's no different than lighting a campfire where there's dry grass and brush, then going off to pick berries, and try to get off being charged with setting the forest fire that results by saying you didn't mean to -- it doesn't matter whether you meant to, the reality is that you destroyed trees and wildlife.


I hope you oppose hate speech laws, hate crime laws, and laws against discrimination, because if this is "free speech", so are all those.

Should we ban all works that have the potential to incite a negative reaction?

Violent Video Games
Gory & Particularly Violent Movies
Defamatory & Violent Music
Murder Themed Books
the list is endless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NO!!

As far as hate speech laws are concerned I'm in favor of a complete re-examination of the current laws. One man's hate speech is another man's rallying call for freedom. This is a slippery road we cannot afford to travel.

Hate crime laws do not equate with hate speech laws. The former is action based whereas the latter is merely spoken word based.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!

 

[Kulindahr]

I also dislike underage j/o materials but your wording kind of scares me, considering it comes from GLBT community. "Incitement to rape" is the exact word used by the pornphobic religious to ban porn in my country!!! Yeah, in my country ALL kinds of porn (vids, pix, even text - gay/st7/bi/anything sexual) is banned. They also yelled for kids protection BUT the adults who like adult porn are also become the victim of anti-porn bill here. Basically, the pornphobic religious think ALL kinds of porn incite people to RAPE. They say, you watch/read porn, you get horny, you rape.

That's stupid! I'm sure you'll say that. But thats exactly what you wrote about pedo stories. Look, I'm NOT defending pedo stories, I'm just trying to be objective. And I'm honestly scared by the way you write... Are you sure you're a member of GLBT coz you talk like those pornphobic people?

I believe people own themselves. In the case of kids, that self-ownership is flimsy, because they aren't yet equipped to deal with the world in a lot of ways. Until they are, they deserve/need protection.

But once they are, all bets are off. The religiofascists want to own everyone; they don't recognize self-ownership at all. Any activity between consenting adults is moral by any rational standard -- it may not be good for them, but as was said on a fave show of mine, "Life IS risk".

But that isn't the way I wrote about pedo stories -- I noted that they are also almost certainly helping a small portion of pedophiles to keep from hurting kids. But that's not relevant; it's like saying a truck wreck that spilled diesel into a creek was beneficial to a tiny class of microscopic organisms while standing there watching fish and snakes and insects and plants dying -- what's relevant isn't that there exists a tiny class that benefits, but that overall it is devastatingly damaging.

And having experienced abuse as a kid, I have no room for the, "Well, they'll get over it" attitude. The mere existence of child porn stories harms a certain number of kids, because knowing adults don't just do it -- they understand that there are bad people -- but that there are some who write about it as a fun thing, scares them incredibly deeply. I know of kids who have been in counseling for several years just from coming across kiddie porn stuff, obviously from a computer printer, in a trash can.

A society that tolerates this is just as sick as a society which tells people they can't enjoy mind-altering entertainment in privacy, or can't decide to sell their own bodies when they're short on cash, or can't talk about candidates the last thirty days before an election -- or, for that matter, that they can't have wild sex with strangers, record it, and put it on the internet for other adults to see. By the only rational measure of how human society should be founded, ours is a very sick one.

 

[Kulindahr]

I wrote exactly that type of story and it was approved by Autolycus. (You've probably already read it.) The age of the abused was incidental to the story and was really mentioned only in passing, but it was absolutely vital to the outcome of the story. That's why Autolycus allowed it.

Demons? Oh, indeed there were demons.

To remind me, and for the edification of others, what story is that?

 

[himeros]

Should we ban all works that have the potential to incite a negative reaction?
NO!!

I agree!!!

I think the problem here is we are disgusted at something, and we want it gone! It's like how the gays in JUB now react to gay underage stories and gay 'violent/rape' stories. They are disgusted and they want those things gone, censored, erased, purged, whatever word you can come up with.

IRONICALLY, those puritan members act eerily similar to religious homophobes! Those homophobes too are disgusted with us, gays. And they want us, gays, gone! My question is, how can we gays treat our own kind (pedo and BDSM gays) like that ???!!! We're nothing better than those religious gay haters!!!!

Again, I must restate that I do NOT condone pedo stories and heavily violent/bloody sex stories (though my mild 'violent' stories are being crucified here)! I'm an objective man. I try to stay neutral, I don't want to judge. I'm just amazed by the extreme view of some puritan GLBT members here....

This is stupid! We gays are HARD among ourselves (not sexually hard!) but SOFT when we confront religious homophobes. What's wrong with this picture??? Seriously, guys, look into the mirror and see how similar you are with those homophobes. Maybe you'll protest, "Its not the same!" Well, but the way you guys fight to eradicate 'violent' and underage stories is still similar with the way those homophobes fight to eradicate us. Same spirit, different agenda. I can imagine Fred Phelps or Michelle Bachmann prancing around if they read JUB's argumentative threads: "Hallelujah! The gays are fighting among themseleves."

I know I talk sharp and some may hate me for my blatant view. But my point is, if you hates underage stories, don't read them! You don't have to launch a gay crusade to eliminate all pedo stories.

 

[asu1117]

No, it's not free speech, it's incitement to rape.

If this is free speech, writing stories that make people who assassinate the president into heroes should be "free speech". Write one, put it on the web, and see what happens.


The mere existence of these stories is bad enough. But the fact that there are pedophiles out there reading them is sufficient to prove they are harming kids. If just one pedophile acts on those stories (more likely, hundreds have), then the authors are accessory to child sexual abuse, rape, sexual assault, and more -- and where they belong is prison.

This isn't a matter of personal preference or opinion, it's a matter of known harm: pedophilic literature stimulates a good portion of pedophiles to act out. So anyone writing such stories is implicitly saying, "I want adults to sexually assault little kids." It isn't allowable to beg off responsibility because "That's not why I wrote it"; the results of doing so are known, so the author knows in advance what he's doing. It's no different than lighting a campfire where there's dry grass and brush, then going off to pick berries, and try to get off being charged with setting the forest fire that results by saying you didn't mean to -- it doesn't matter whether you meant to, the reality is that you destroyed trees and wildlife.


I hope you oppose hate speech laws, hate crime laws, and laws against discrimination, because if this is "free speech", so are all those.

QFT! I couldn't agree more.

 

[Kulindahr]

One does have to take that into account!

Your [Kulindahr] writing though is nothing short of brilliance!

However your argument is flawed:


Should we ban all works that have the potential to incite a negative reaction?

Violent Video Games
Gory & Particularly Violent Movies
Defamatory & Violent Music
Murder Themed Books
the list is endless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NO!!

As far as hate speech laws are concerned I'm in favor of a complete re-examination of the current laws. One man's hate speech is another man's rallying call for freedom. This is a slippery road we cannot afford to travel.

Hate crime laws do not equate with hate speech laws. The former is action based whereas the latter is merely spoken word based.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!

The dividing line is simple: does it incite?

And there's another easy criterion: is it plainly not real?

FPS games where people wander the streets and blow people away are clearly fantasy, not just fiction. Kiddie porn writing is not obviously fantasy.

And as I've pointed out, kids are in a special category: they are not developed into full self-ownership, and their minds are not equipped to deal with threatening forms of evil.

The slippery road we can't afford to travel is one where it's portrayed as okay to harm kids. That's not an endorsement of every whining cry that we must keep the children safe (campaigns usually based on oppressing adults who are little danger to anyone, and generally not based on any concern for kids but on a hatred of certain groups), just one that says if we aren't interested in keeping kids safe from severe harm, we may as well throw in the towel as a civilization.

 

[gsdx]

To remind me, and for the edification of others, what story is that?

That would be Best Buddies Play Hard.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree!!!

I think the problem here is we are disgusted at something, and we want it gone! It's like how the gays in JUB now react to gay underage stories and gay 'violent/rape' stories. They are disgusted and they want those things gone, censored, erased, purged, whatever word you can come up with.

IRONICALLY, those puritan members act eerily similar to religious homophobes! Those homophobes too are disgusted with us, gays. And they want us, gays, gone! My question is, how can we gays treat our own kind (pedo and BDSM gays) like that ???!!! We're nothing better than those religious gay haters!!!!

Again, I must restate that I do NOT condone pedo stories and heavily violent/bloody sex stories (though my mild 'violent' stories are being crucified here)! I'm an objective man. I try to stay neutral, I don't want to judge. I'm just amazed by the extreme view of some puritan GLBT members here....

Seriously, guys, look into the mirror and see how similar youa re with those homophobes. Maybe you'll protest, "Its not the same!" Well, but the way you guys fight to eradicate 'violent' and underage stories is still similar with the way those homophobes fight to eradicate us. Same spirit, different agenda.

I can imagine Fred Phelps or Michelle Bachmann prancing around if they read JUB's threads: "Hallelujah! The gays are fighting among themseleves."

"Disgusted at something"? That's as void as the accusation that people protesting a certain member's recent banning were his friends (the loudest voices in his defense couldn't stand the guy): it's irrelevant.

I presume I'd be disgusted at it, but having never read any, I won't guess. But I won't read any in the first place, because I'm not going to degrade myself by spending time inputting images that will pollute my mind with degradation of the vulnerable, that are endorsements of treating kids like material objects.

Your comparison to the homophobes is ludicrous, because it's shallow. My point is that humans own themselves, and while kids are growing into being able to handle that responsibility, they are to be protected; the point of view of the homophobes is that in anything they dislike, they are the masters and everyone else is the slaves. The fact is that the valid comparison here is between the authors of kiddie porn and the homophobes, because both treat other people as objects and glorify abuse and tyranny.


As for Phelps, personally I wish he would read JUB's threads -- overall, in the serious discussion forums, they're probably more edifying that most of what he's ever produced, and in the other sections... he'd probably have a heart attack and collapse, leaving the world a better place.

 

[mygaybuffet]

The dividing line is simple: does it incite?

And there's another easy criterion: is it plainly not real?

FPS games where people wander the streets and blow people away are clearly fantasy, not just fiction. Kiddie porn writing is not obviously fantasy.

And as I've pointed out, kids are in a special category: they are not developed into full self-ownership, and their minds are not equipped to deal with threatening forms of evil.

The slippery road we can't afford to travel is one where it's portrayed as okay to harm kids. That's not an endorsement of every whining cry that we must keep the children safe (campaigns usually based on oppressing adults who are little danger to anyone, and generally not based on any concern for kids but on a hatred of certain groups), just one that says if we aren't interested in keeping kids safe from severe harm, we may as well throw in the towel as a civilization.

To some the very existence of gays incites a violent reaction. To others the existence of abortion clinics incites a violent reaction. Just about anything can incite a violent reaction. Look at the Bible. Better yet look at the Koran. Those two books combined have incited more violence and bloodshed than all the wars throughout world history put together. Yet both religions not only are legal but are viewed as holy institutions that can't be touched. According to your logic we should ban these inciters.

So my question to you is this: Who are you or am I to decide what stays and what goes?!

I will always err on the side of freedom, regardless of how disgusting or immoral that freedom is. The problem is with the individual exercising that freedom, not the freedom itself.

 

[himeros]

We gays have wrong agenda here. Instead of wasting energy and time to create a gay puritan society free of underage and 'violent/rape' j/o materials, we should have been OUT there fighting for our gay rights against the homophobes...

 

[Kulindahr]

I know I talk sharp and some may hate me for my blatant view. But my point is, if you hates underage stories, don't read them! You don't have to launch a gay crusade to eliminate all pedo stories.

No, you're missing the point. This is similar to saying, "If you don't like Corporation X poisoning kids' lunches, don't buy their stock", or "If you don't like NeoNazis urging all whites to beat up blacks and Asians, don't donate to their cause".

Kiddie porn, whether pictures or text, is harmful. It is harmful to those who read it, because psychologically it is rehearsing and practicing for the actions in real. It is harmful to kids out there who are going to be victims because it trained some people thoroughly enough they were set off to engage in those actions.

If you don't like water pollution, you can decide not to pollute -- but the pollution is still there, and it is still damaging, it is still destroying, it is still killing.

 

[mygaybuffet]

We gays have wrong agenda here. Instead of wasting energy and time to create a gay puritan society free of underage and 'violent/rape' j/o materials, we should have been OUT there fighting for our gay rights against the homophobes...

A toast to that!

 

[Kulindahr]

To some the very existence of gays incites a violent reaction. To others the existence of abortion clinics incites a violent reaction. Just about anything can incite a violent reaction. Look at the Bible. Better yet look at the Koran. Those two books combined have incited more violence and bloodshed than all the wars throughout world history put together. Yet both religions not only are legal but are viewed as holy institutions that can't be touched. According to your logic we should ban these inciters.

So my question to you is this: Who are you or am I to decide what stays and what goes?!

I will always err on the side of freedom, regardless of how disgusting or immoral that freedom is. The problem is with the individual exercising that freedom, not the freedom itself.

Your reasoning is shallow.

In the examples you give, the people are inciting themselves, because they are looking at other people exercising their self-ownership and attempting to deny it in preference for their own tyranny.

If you "err on the side of freedom", then you should have no problem with getting rid of all restrictions on ownership of weapons, explosives, poisons, samples of devastating diseases, or requiring purity of drugs, truth in advertising, safe slaughtering procedures, labeling of fruits and vegetables for pesticides, or throwing out speed limits, drivers' licenses, vehicle safety standards, housing codes, or -- most pertinent here because it's a direct parallel to what you're defending -- safety standards for toys. Let the manufacturers use lead paint! After all, we don't care if children are harmed!


What you're ignoring is that freedom ends where my neighbor's nose begins -- in other words, my liberty ends where harm to another is involved. And these stories do harm -- there is no avoiding that. They feed to desires of pedophiles. They help them convince themselves that abusing kids is okay. They may even tip some over the edge into being active pedophiles.

That's what you're supporting.