No. But, come on, anyone who seeks out and watches child porn for entertainment is a paedophile or has paedophile tendencies, yes. Nobody who doesn't would want to watch such disgusting abuse merely because they are 'curious', regardless of what they might tell themselves.
Yes or no...do you think everyone who watches zoophile porn is a zoophile?
That is an irrelevant question, and you know full well it cannot be answered. Same as watching child porn does not make a person a pedo, in the same way watching gay porn doesn't make you gay. You are deliberately focusing on the word "watch", as all that means it you have seen it.
Watching child porn does not necessarily make you a pedo, but it is against the law. If they were turned on by it, then yes (although the exact terminology varies depending on specific tastes, but for ease pedo will do), they are.
I am thinking that this "question" is a wind up, it is the same as saying "does watching a football match make you a fan of football?" most people are working on the assumption that the person enjoyed it, when the question is actually not making that distinction.
But regardless of reasons, it is illegal to watch child porn.
(and the whole "oh I accidentally clicked on it" is bollocks, as anyone with a bit of understanding of how the Internet works ,knows that the chances are astronomically small that child porn links would be next to typical browsing sites. Some level of direction is needed, and it isnt like the stuff is advertised all over the place, its quite hidden for obvious reasons. In fact, I suspect some people on this forum would struggle to find child porn as its not as simple as a google search. Believe it or not, but most websites avoid that garbage like the plague for all the trouble it brings with it.)
That is an irrelevant question, and you know full well it cannot be answered. Same as watching child porn does not make a person a pedo, in the same way watching gay porn doesn't make you gay. You are deliberately focusing on the word "watch", as all that means it you have seen it.
I'm focusing on the word 'watch' because the thread title is "Some men who watch child pornography are NOT pedophiles".
If someone choose to watch zoo porn, yes they have a sexual interest in animals.
And that's the point. Watching something online does not automatically mean you gain sexual gratification from it or any other kind of gratification. Obviously, it goes without saying that there are clearly people out there who do gain gratification from certain things online and those are the ones who need dealing with.
To essentially declare that "if you do this, then you're definitely that" is a gross over simplification IMO.
I think you would find it incredibly difficult to watch if you are not a peadophile, I mean even if you were curious, why would you want to? I don't think I could, even if I were curious. I don't think you would have to be a paedophile to watch it as a one off, but to regularly make a habit of it? Yeah, something's not right there.
I think it's easier to find child porn than people think. When I was at uni one of my flatmates (who was regular porn connoisseur) reported child porn a few times. Not that he watched the videos, but it was obvious from the thumbnails, what the content was.
I'm focusing on the word 'watch' because the thread title is "Some men who watch child pornography are NOT pedophiles".
But it is an out of context statement based on word play. I could take your comment and highlight aspects, and posit questions that do not really have answers.
"some men" are you implying no females watch child porn? are females who watch child porn less guilty than males? are they worse?
It is just an attempt to wind people up by hiding behind a simple sentence that has no context attached to it.
If my dog is a boxer, are all dogs boxers?
But those prosecuted of watching child porn are more than likely not people who accidentally clicked on a link once and then left. The fact they "watched" the child porn shows a level of cooporation in the act. If it was "they clicked on a website" then you could claim a mistake (however unlikely), but to watch implies they watched the whole thing, or at least enough to get what they wanted.
It is all irrelevant anyway, as it is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is illegal to watch child porn, regardless of sexual attraction.
Of course I don't. Which, with the greatest of respect, renders this statement invalid ..
And that's the point. Watching something online does not automatically mean you gain sexual gratification from it or any other kind of gratification. Obviously, it goes without saying that there are clearly people out there who do gain gratification from certain things online and those are the ones who need dealing with.
To essentially declare that "if you do this, then you're definitely that" is a gross over simplification IMO.
I wouldn't want anyone around my young niece and nephew if they watched child porn.
John Grishams thoughts within that article are quite thought provoking to be honest.
This is one extract from it...
'"His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website. It was labelled 'sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that'. And it said '16-year-old girls'. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff - it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.
"He shouldn't ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys. He didn't touch anything. And God, a week later there was a knock on the door: ‘FBI!’ and it was sting set up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to catch people - sex offenders - and he went to prison for three years."
What I don't understand is why would someone make a child pornographic website in the first place. Surely they would get found out and what's the point if you're not making money out of it.
I think if someone accidentally clicks on one and logs straight out then yes they're not a a pedophile. But if they actually watch it then they are a pedo.
Apart from an investigator who checks to see whether the images someone has are indecent or not I would have thought that anyone else looking at this kind of thing is a paedophile?
It will be a backlash for sure.
Shame he could not stand by some of his opinions on regarding the US law on viewing underage porn.
Some of his comments were valid regarding how the viewers get as much time as the pedos.
What I don't understand is why would someone make a child pornographic website in the first place. Surely they would get found out and what's the point if you're not making money out of it.
I think if someone accidentally clicks on one and logs straight out then yes they're not a a pedophile. But if they actually watch it then they are a pedo.
I think some sites are probably hosted abroad where the authorities aren't as strict.
On a slightly different note, I don't understand why downloading child porn is classed as 'making' it. It was on 24 Hours in Police Custody the other night.
Not being an expert like but if the cops feel the need to grade Child Porn then it follows that there are different grades of people who like to view images of naked children, and they can't ALL be card carrying paedophiles.
The guy who collects arty erotic paintings, prints or photographs of questionably aged post pubescent nymphets is lumped in with the guy with hundreds of videos of babies being abused.
I find it difficult to believe that blokes who have a prediliction for all things extreme porn haven't sought out these sites at one time or another.
It will be a backlash for sure.
Shame he could not stand by some of his opinions on regarding the US law on viewing underage porn.
Some of his comments were valid regarding how the viewers get as much time as the pedos.
At least he has had the good grace not to blame the paper for misinterpreting his words
I can see where he's coming from re the absurdity of sentences for looking a child porn images being higher than for committing the acts themselves, that seems completely nonsensical.
I can also kind of see his point if someone were to view such images once and then never again. Curiosity and alcohol can lead to some weird places on the Web after all. I would hope that if such a pattern could be proved ie an otherwise clean Web history and one set of these kinds of websites being accessed in a single night a court would acknowledge that in the sentencing.
However it is worth remembering that for every click leading to one of these types of image a child has been abused in order for the image to exist. That should really be a chilling enough thought to keep people away from this stuff.
Comments
I disagree and I think on reflection you might reconsider.
Rather reckless...however in and of itself I don't think it proves pedophilia.
Your position seems contradictory to me.
I don't know, do you?
If some chooses to watch a video of a child being raped, what does it make them?
And you seem to be very defensive about paedophilia.
That is an irrelevant question, and you know full well it cannot be answered. Same as watching child porn does not make a person a pedo, in the same way watching gay porn doesn't make you gay. You are deliberately focusing on the word "watch", as all that means it you have seen it.
Watching child porn does not necessarily make you a pedo, but it is against the law. If they were turned on by it, then yes (although the exact terminology varies depending on specific tastes, but for ease pedo will do), they are.
I am thinking that this "question" is a wind up, it is the same as saying "does watching a football match make you a fan of football?" most people are working on the assumption that the person enjoyed it, when the question is actually not making that distinction.
But regardless of reasons, it is illegal to watch child porn.
(and the whole "oh I accidentally clicked on it" is bollocks, as anyone with a bit of understanding of how the Internet works ,knows that the chances are astronomically small that child porn links would be next to typical browsing sites. Some level of direction is needed, and it isnt like the stuff is advertised all over the place, its quite hidden for obvious reasons. In fact, I suspect some people on this forum would struggle to find child porn as its not as simple as a google search. Believe it or not, but most websites avoid that garbage like the plague for all the trouble it brings with it.)
I'm focusing on the word 'watch' because the thread title is "Some men who watch child pornography are NOT pedophiles".
Of course I don't. Which, with the greatest of respect, renders this statement invalid ..
And that's the point. Watching something online does not automatically mean you gain sexual gratification from it or any other kind of gratification. Obviously, it goes without saying that there are clearly people out there who do gain gratification from certain things online and those are the ones who need dealing with.
To essentially declare that "if you do this, then you're definitely that" is a gross over simplification IMO.
I think it's easier to find child porn than people think. When I was at uni one of my flatmates (who was regular porn connoisseur) reported child porn a few times. Not that he watched the videos, but it was obvious from the thumbnails, what the content was.
But it is an out of context statement based on word play. I could take your comment and highlight aspects, and posit questions that do not really have answers.
"some men" are you implying no females watch child porn? are females who watch child porn less guilty than males? are they worse?
It is just an attempt to wind people up by hiding behind a simple sentence that has no context attached to it.
If my dog is a boxer, are all dogs boxers?
But those prosecuted of watching child porn are more than likely not people who accidentally clicked on a link once and then left. The fact they "watched" the child porn shows a level of cooporation in the act. If it was "they clicked on a website" then you could claim a mistake (however unlikely), but to watch implies they watched the whole thing, or at least enough to get what they wanted.
It is all irrelevant anyway, as it is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is illegal to watch child porn, regardless of sexual attraction.
I wouldn't want anyone around my young niece and nephew if they watched child porn.
This is one extract from it...
'"His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website. It was labelled 'sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that'. And it said '16-year-old girls'. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff - it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.
"He shouldn't ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys. He didn't touch anything. And God, a week later there was a knock on the door: ‘FBI!’ and it was sting set up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to catch people - sex offenders - and he went to prison for three years."
I think if someone accidentally clicks on one and logs straight out then yes they're not a a pedophile. But if they actually watch it then they are a pedo.
https://www.facebook.com/JohnGrisham?ref=br_rs
Hmmm, wonder why - back lash do you think?
It will be a backlash for sure.
Shame he could not stand by some of his opinions on regarding the US law on viewing underage porn.
Some of his comments were valid regarding how the viewers get as much time as the pedos.
I think some sites are probably hosted abroad where the authorities aren't as strict.
The guy who collects arty erotic paintings, prints or photographs of questionably aged post pubescent nymphets is lumped in with the guy with hundreds of videos of babies being abused.
I find it difficult to believe that blokes who have a prediliction for all things extreme porn haven't sought out these sites at one time or another.
Isn't that illegal?
At least he has had the good grace not to blame the paper for misinterpreting his words
bollocks...that`s what I think of it
I can also kind of see his point if someone were to view such images once and then never again. Curiosity and alcohol can lead to some weird places on the Web after all. I would hope that if such a pattern could be proved ie an otherwise clean Web history and one set of these kinds of websites being accessed in a single night a court would acknowledge that in the sentencing.
However it is worth remembering that for every click leading to one of these types of image a child has been abused in order for the image to exist. That should really be a chilling enough thought to keep people away from this stuff.
It's unquantifiable . Who knows how many are sexually aroused and masturbate watching it but why would anyone choose to watch such abuse?