Radio Netherlands Worldwide

SSO Login

More login possibilities:

Close
  • Facebook
  • Flickr
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
Home
Monday 22 December  
Comic-book pornography
News Desk's picture
Map
Hilversum, Netherlands
Hilversum, Netherlands

Can cartoon child pornography help paedophiles?

Published on : 20 January 2011 - 2:43pm | By RNW News Desk (Image: fotographia guerrilla)
More about:

What if you could give paedophiles drawings of child pornography to steer their impulses in a safe direction? This controversial proposal has garnered support from the Dutch anti-child pornography lobby: “We’re for everything that helps combat abuse”.

People become paedophiles during their earliest periods of development. The sexual orientation cannot be cured or changed, but it can be managed. This is the opinion of leading brain researcher Dick Swaab at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN). It underpins his call for electronic child pornography, for example in comic strip form.

“By making child pornography available, we can steer paedophiles’ impulses in the right direction and that should reduce child abuse,” Professor Swaab argues. But for many people, the idea will take some getting used to.

“The common view is that pornography exacerbates the problem. But the well-known United States sexologist, Professor Milton Diamond, has shown in Eastern Europe that pornography reduces the problem. People are able to give vent to their impulses without harming victims. This is something that should be tested.”

Unexpected support
Professor Swaab’s plan can count on support from an unexpected source: the Dutch anti-paedophile group, Stopkinderpornonu (Stop-child-pornography-now). The group’s position is clear: possession of child pornography and the abuse of children should be combated in every way possible. However, it is willing to consider this proposal because real children would not be harmed. Spokesman Chris Hölsken goes as far as to describe it as a really good idea.

“… because we’re fighting to stop child pornography and child abuse. That means that every form and every method should be studied carefully. If fake pornographic images, such as in cartoons, can lead to stopping child abuse, we support that.”

No solution
The Dutch pro-paedophile group, Martijn, which pushes for more acceptance of adult-child relationships, dismisses child-pornography cartoons. Chairman Ad van den Berg points out that these sorts of comic books have been around for years and have not proved to be a solution. Japanese cartoonists lead the way in pornographic work, known as ‘hentai’, ‘manga’ and ‘shota’, in which sex with underage partners is depicted.

It appears the proposal would not fall foul of Dutch law. While possession of child pornography is illegal, cartoons would be allowed – as long as the images were not too lifelike.

Emotional
However distressing it may be, sexual abuse will never be completely stopped. Professor Swaab points to the recent abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church and Dutch day care centres, adding that he’s sure these are just the tip of the iceberg. He believes society has to decide how best to deal with this, even if it is distasteful.

“It’s an issue that people find extremely difficult to address. It stimulates strong emotions, and I can understand why. Your child being abused is the worst thing that can happen. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apply ourselves to finding ways to reduce the risks, because there will always be people who are born paedophiles. It’s better to think of how to keep them on the straight and narrow than to respond in a purely emotional way.”

(mw/rk)

 

Discussion

toyotabedzrock 8 August 2012 - 6:53am / US

Being a pedo, is not a sexual orientation for most of what society says are pedophiles.

Most people actually do not hurt more children after getting caught.

Ciaran Hanley 22 June 2011 - 4:05pm / UK

Anonymous, you and Martijn and NAMBLA and whoever else can protest all you want but do not I see you getting anywhere with your intentions nor do I agree with them. There are a lot of things that could be legalised and taxed (marijuana anybody?) but the legalisation of actual child pornography isn’t one of them I‘d like to see happen.

Though that still leaves hundreds of thousands of people who have been born with paedophilic sexual tastes. I apologise to any gay people reading this but being born a paedophile is as irreversible as being born gay, or straight or whatever else. The point is that children shouldn’t be subjected to the advances of older people because they’re too young to understand the situation or probably even feel any pleasure in that kind of relationship. In fact, sometimes I’m sceptical that a lot of grown people don't know the first thing about sex. Many young people (especially in this country) have had very little education on sex and relationships and start having babies as soon as they leave or sometimes even during school. This is going off on a whole other tangent which isn’t really related to the subject but I’d wager that the kind people who are critical of sex education are the same kind of insecure numpties who would outlaw a drawing.

Sooo… time for another tangent! Coming back to marijuana the argument for legalisation regulation and taxing “could“ be used as an analogy for the legalisation of cartoon child pornography, though realistically cartoon child pornography and even wholly fictional written stories are less harmful. Smoking around children and young people will damage their lungs. Masturbating over pictures on the internet and drawing your own fantasies down on paper or on the computer doesn’t even hurt people in the “ewww! I didn’t want to see that!” sense as long as it’s done in your own privacy. On the internet you’ve got no-one to blame but yourself if you find things you don’t like and also no-one else to blame if you let children surf the web unsupervised. Your problem then is that you’re a lousy parent/guardian.

Alberto and jasmin are wrong and I'm sure neither of them are scientists or socially aware enough to know how ridiculous their positions are. Molesting children is illegal, but so is running over old ladies with cars and carving people up with chainsaws, but neither the Grand Theft Auto videogame series nor the Gears of War videogame series have really been subject to the kind of wide-spread ban that cartoon child porn has because it's widely accepted that killing a virtual person (even in the most gut-wrenching ways possible) is an entirely victimless exercise. So is creating and using any form of crafted pornography that comes purely from the imagination of the artist, so why ban that over Marcus Fenix grinding his human-shaped enemies into something resembling burger meat? I’d imagine that a news report about someone running around a busy town centre with a chainsaw carving people up would be seen as a lot more sick and twisted than a child being touched inappropriately.

jasmin, there is more of an argument that having access to cartoon child porn is not only harmless but will satisfy most people with these fetishes and potentially stop some cases of this kind of thing happening for real. If you believe that the abuse of some children by the minority of sexually frustrated paedophiles capable of rape who aren't allowed to get their rocks off any other way is worth banning some harmless lines on paper then I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with your outlook on life.

As for you Alberto, I can barely understand your post at all. Though I get that you are a raving ninny who seems to be channelling Mary Whitehouse and judging by your comment on violence probably wants to ban classic Tom and Jerry cartoons (which the British government managed to do briefly under Margeret Thatcher a couple decades ago). Both your and jasmin’s whole argument is based around disproven theories about media negatively influencing people. Children were kicking the crap out of each other long before the Power Rangers came on TV and teens would be doing ridiculous stunts and getting hurt even if Jackass had never been shown on MTV. Cartoons depicting child characters getting horrible things done to them are not going to create a legion of slavering ravenous uncontrollable child-molesters any more than your ideas on the matter are going to make any real sense.

In summary: Drawings are not people and neither are videogame characters or any other sort of 3D model as long as it’s made purely from imagination (Those full-body scanners they have at the airports now are more of a scandal than this). Oh, and let the nonces have their silly cartoons. It’s all they’ve got.

Anonymous 2 11 July 2011 - 12:35am

I agree with most of your comment Ciaran. I see the seeming surface connection between this subject and those horrible GTA and other violent video games and the legalizing of marijuana, but I don't see it as anything more than a superficial comparison, i.e. they are all considered bad things by most people and are variously either banned or socially frowned on. Beyond that I don't see any connection at all.

Now, firstly I want to make clear that I abhor any molestation of children at all, as well as any molestation of adults. The concepts of "child" and "adult" are wholly artificial and arbitrary concepts anyway and have no real meaning or basis in human biology or psychology, so I find it ALL abhorrant. We don't base adulthood on the occurrence puberty anymore anyway as we once did, so it is utterly meaningless as a concept. It has no real basis at all, it only exists in law, and as everyone knows "the law is an ass" lol. It is solely for the convenience of lawyers and the courts, so they have something concrete to litigate around. It has nothing to do with human baseline biological or mental reality at all.

That said, anyone who takes advantage of ANYONE, who plays upon trust, who misleads with false promises or incomplete information, or who buys affection with gifts, or who puts anyone in a position where they might feel they have to tell fibs or lies in order to protect someone more powerful than themselves from someone(s) else who is also more powerful than themselves, or who endangers in any significant way, a person less capable of perceiving the dangers they are potentially being exposed to; has done wrong. I mince no words about that, and it is why I remain celibate to this day, because I am not going to open that can of worms for anyone else of for myself. Even tho that can of worms was created by society itself--artificially and unnecessarily. IN ADDITION, much of what I just condemned also applies to many, even most, heterosexuals in one or more of the relationships they have had. Men are usually more powerful than women, except when they aren't! Someone is ALWAYS more powerful in any relationship that exists, or ever has existed. It is how people treat each other that matters, not whether someone is more powerful or not.

And heterosexuals mislead each other in various ways all the time, but society has determined it is ok for them. I say it isn't! But that isn't going to change anything anytime soon. Sometimes I think heterosexuals, and a surprising number of homosexuals, hate us so much only because they see US through the lens of their OWN actions and moral weaknesses! They can't imagine a child being subjected to their OWN sexual and moral rapacity if their OWN sexual desires were to suddenly change overnight. But they don't understand that, for most of us, our feelings started in childhood, like theirs did, but "got stuck" somehow, and we have spent a lifetime with the innocence of childhood fantasies rolling around in our hearts and minds. We are not bad people, just a misunderstood people. Those cartoon pictures that depict horrible, often violent, behavior involving children are the opposite of what we actually want. IMO, it is a situation where the most violent among us are determining the tastes, and what is available online for the rest of us, and I don't like it one bit.

There are a moderate amount of non-violent and non-deception based anime and other cartoon stories and art floating around out there, and when well done artistically, they are the closest thing to what most of us want in our hearts. But, there's no doubt, the sickos are being catered to first. I suspect it is mainly because they are the just about the only ones who are suffficiently less afraid to spend their money online in order to buy anything at all. I personally have never spent a dime online for anything sexual online because of fear. So I guess my non-violent/non-coercive tastes will rarely if ever get catered to. That is law enforcement's fault. It creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for them regarding what they think our mentality and desires are all about. We have a saying over here, "When guns are outlawed, ONLY outlaws will have guns!" That is dead-on accurate. If you ban something that you have no right to ban and no business even wanting to ban, and which, properly wielded, is a good thing for society, then you remove most good people from the scene of it, leaving only the bad. If you banned ice cream cones and put a death penalty on it, and went on an official orgy of carrying out executions of good people and bad people indiscriminately who were found to be enjoying ice cream cones, then you would find in short order that, for the most part, only the most heinous people would be found to still be eating them--people who had little to lose, delighted in breaking the rules and had little to lose. It would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now the fact is, that violence and the mind and morals altering aspects of a violent video game are a bad thing. Real harm is resulting from that, and no good can come from it, aside from a patina of improved eye/hand coordination, which could be equally gained in non-graphically violent games. But still the government makes a poor servant and a fearsome master and even worse, a devastatingly BAD extension of the clergy! Best to keep it in merely "poor servant" status, the damage it can do to society is less that way. So I don't support banning these games, tho I do support victims of these types of crimes suing the bejesus out of the video game makers who encourage this. In otherwords, don't criminalize GTA et al, instead sue them into bankruptcy.

Pot is another matter, it is a non-medical weed, that potentially has refinable medicine WITHIN it. So it should be banned, studied and refined and rendered as much as is possible, into medical components. But it should NEVER be smoked, anymore than one smokes a loaf of moldy bread for the penicillin. True medicine is NEVER smoked. We take an aspirin pill orally, we don't go smoke white willow bark. There is no quality grading possible in a smoked product, no way to run double blind studies with any precision, and no way to reduce let alone eliminate the inherently bad effects of smoke on the lungs, and no way to keep it to yourself--unless you do it alone. If we smoked ADD medicine, we would all be "on it" if it were done publicly. If we had to smoke a flu vaccine, you can be sure that the companies putting it out would be sued into non-existence within a few years because of the lung damage etc. I'll believe the idiots who believe that "pot is great medicine" are sincere about that, when I see mass numbers of them smoking a loaf of moldy bread every time they get a bacterial infection. Mind you, I won't believe they are RIGHT, just that they are being consistent in their medical stupidity. But that will never happen, arguing with pot heads is like fighting with packing peanuts and little bits of Saran wrap--nailing them down on anything is like trying to nail jello to a tree. You are orders of magnitude stronger in EVERY way, factual and otherwise, but they will never admit it and are too permanently fried to know it. They don't even know when they have "lost". Nailing down themselves and their "arguments" is like trying to nail down confetti with a staple gun--it can be done--if you have unlimited time. But when you're done, all you've managed to do is nail down a bunch of pointless confetti, so you look like a fool. And in the end the "Confetti Man" STILL doesn't even know he's been beaten anyway. Bottom line is you're arguing with a drug--not someone who is a "fully realized person anymore".

Cannabis also makes great rope, paper, cloth etc. So the non-THC version of it should be legalized and monitored, in order to help the economy and also to take a wedge issue away from the mindless pot-heads. They are interested in smoking dope--not making rope anyway. They also are cruelly exploiting the very, very sick in order to support their wish to make their harmful addiction legal, and should be continuously and vociferously condemned for that. They couldn't care less about cancer or other disease sufferers and have NO interest in pot being mined for it's possibly helpful components, they are addicts with a certain amount of brain damage and simply want to continue to get high--and that's literally all there is to it. And I have no patience for them. They weren't born with that "need" and, unlike my sexual feelings and deepest positive desires, there could be no social or other benefit from legalizing it.

That said, if once in 30 years or so from now, we find a way to eliminate the harmful effects of pot, say thru bloodstream nanobots and such then I would be in favor of legalization. If the damage of smoked pot can be eliminated easily afterwards, then WHY NOT legalize it? But in the meantime, I don't want to pay higher health, life and auto insurance rates etc, due to them being in the statistical mix with the rest of us. And I also don't want them in the workplace lowering safety and efficiency for the rest of us, they don't have that right. And lastly, I don't want to ever have to breathe in their mind-altering smoke, and that is where it is headed if we don't get organized right now and stop them. We will be expected to "tolerate" breathing the druggy air around them and not say anything, and there will be more of them than ever for us to unfairly have to subsidize on the health, life and auto (etc) insurance rolls.

That said, as far as "child/teen" sexuality goes. Few of us want it to be "open season" on minors, sexually speaking. For Heavens sake, we were all children ourselves and remember it more keenly probably than those who don't share our sexuality anymore do. And I say "anymore", because you were ALL pedophiles as children, but just don't willingly remember that anymore. You played the little games, that were "so serious" at the time. You considered it "alright" at the time. Well, your feelings moved on and ours didn't. They stayed the same. We (most of us anyway) never became attracted to adults, at least to any extent. So we are your playmates, all grown up, but unchanged in this one regard. We don't "hate" children, we don't want to rape them, we simply are unchanged in our attraction to them. The feelings you all once had, are the feelings we STILL have. We didn't choose that, instead, like gay men of a generation ago, and often still today, we fought and often still fight our feelings and thoughts ferociously.

Because of your hatred and fear of us, and the danger you and your laws pose to us, we would pay as much money as we have in order to have a conventional sexuality. We wouldn't do that due to believing our sexuality is bad, because it isn't, but merely to eliminate the life altering severe inconvenience and danger that society poses to us.

But it would be much better if society would come to terms with our perennial existence and realize that nature rarely makes large scale mistakes. So we therefore MUST exist for a reason. What that precise reason is, I don't know for sure. But perhaps we served a social purpose in various long forgotten societies over the 200,000 plus years of mankind's existence?

Perhaps we were at one point the equivalent, for children and very young teens, of a bicycle with training wheels, where the learning of "adult style sexuality" was concerned. An adult who could be there for you when you wanted real answers to real questions, and/or wanted to "try something" besides simple childish games to see if you were ready. Perhaps, in ancient tribal societies, we would have been the only adults who would have made the time and had the patience, let alone the "real desire" to share those simple childish games with you, and who would have taken them seriously as being worthy games to play in and of themselves. "Real sex", by which I mean penetration is just not anywhere near as important to us anyway, which is, in an aside, why I suspect it is MAINLY heterosexuals and homosexuals who are drawing most of our cartoon porn anyway. They wouldn't really know what we really want, and would base the porn on what THEY would want, combined (in a toxic way) with what they imagine that we would probably want. But anyway, real penetration is not a big thing, or an "ultimate wish" for many of us. It's "there" as one possibility under certain conditions, but is not "required" or even a necessary goal. The child would have to truly want it and specifically ask for it anyway, then if it weren't deemed to be safe yet, I think most of us would deny it anyway.

So perhaps, in a few long-forgotten societies we were a sort of adult transitional partner of sorts for children/teens who needed or desired a bicycle with training wheels for transitioning their sexuality to an adult mode. Why not...we think nothing of adults as being fit for training the young in every OTHER endeavor, why not sexuality? Why is sexuality the only activity in which the blind are expected to lead the blind? And due to the overwhelming importance to the continuation of the species, why is this one constellation of activities and knowledge, left to chance and the vagaries of children teaching it to each other as best they can? Is it so strange to believe that nature might have once upon a time evolved a way for some children to keep their childhood sexual desires, and to simply not be interested in adults at all, so that they could later be motivated to fill the full-time role of teacher of sexuality to the next generation? An ambassador of sexuality between the generations who could pass on the practices, rules and rites and "do's and don'ts" and so forth to each new crop of youngsters when they got old enough to become curious and to want some adult to teach them something and not laugh at them, belittle them and lose interest before they could learn it? Well THAT is the role most of us crave in the modern day. Is it such a stretch to believe that it is possible that nature has ingrained that role into us? That we are expected by genetic human nature to fulfill a long lost role in society, and that is why our genes continue to crop up? Do you really think evolution could make such a mistake? I know there are genetic flaws that get passed on too, but the difference between a negative genetic flaw and a positive genetic legacy or heritage, is that the flaw is inherently harming to the individual who has it--not socially harming. They recognize that it is harmful and negative to them, and that no amount of social alteration would ever change that. For instance, a person born with one leg instead of two, or with a congenital heart defect or born deaf is never going to say, "Well if society would just come to terms with this, then it wouldn't bother me at all." A pedophile can say that, and have it be true, but a person who is deaf or blind or crippled will NEVER say that, and mean it. They have a disability--plain and simple, they can adapt to it to a degree, and possibly compensate for it to a large degree, and maybe become a stronger person because of it, but it will never be a desired trait for them. But where pedophilia and ephebophilia (teen attraction) is concerned, the "disability" is merely social and legal--and nothing else of note.

Now, if most children were to feel safe enough to be honest about it, I think they would feel relief if there were such an adult to teach them a little here and there. Deep down, I think many adults secretly remember this in small ways. I think that is why our "coming of age" movies are so popular. Movies such as "Summer of '42" and "The Rascals/Les Turlupins" http://blog.reelboys.dreamhosters.com/2011/05/17/les-turlupins-1980/ and "For A Lost Soldier" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108504/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_a_Lost_Soldier ....are IMHO, so compelling and popular because the stories they tell are possibly hardwired genetically into us at a deep level from a time eons gone by, and somehow we sense that and miss it on a deep level. After-all is there ANYONE amongst the hetero/homosexual community who can honestly say that they weren't attracted to some adults as teens or even as children, of course not. Can they honestly say that, given the right circumstances, in which they KNEW for a fact they would not have been rejected, ridiculed or punished or held up to public shaming and in which they would have not "been rushed or raped", that they would not have secretly wished for some adult of the gender(s) they desired, to take them and gently teach them something from time to time as they were ready for it--in effect to have a bicycle with training wheels to use when needed? That is all most of us wish to be. I am certain of it, and I know for a fact that I speak for myself here.

Perhaps some day, and may it be soon, we can mutually begin this discussion amongst ourselves in society, and in time my kind can regain their lost place in society and come in from the long cold.

We are not afraid to submit to rules and be identified and to be socially formed and trained to our positions and monitored for excesses, but we will not self-identify in order to be treated as social lepers, let alone to be sent to the gas chambers as a detested minority. If we can be slowly brought back into the human fold over a period of a generation or two, in an orderly manner, we stand ready to cooperate. But it will have to be a slow process for all concerned, which is the best way I would think given how things stand now.

In summary, we are ready to rejoin society on mutually agreeable terms. The alternative is that, each new generation will create more of us, and we, the large bulk of us, shall remain hidden and of no use to you. And public resources shall continue to be wasted in trying to find and eradicate us to no ultimate end. Nature "wants" us due to our likely ancient usefulness and lineage in equally ancient societies, and therefore our genes are likely to be continually expressed for hundreds or thousands of years.

Whatever purpose we once served can come again in a modern form. Sexuality and romance and such, in a mentally and emotionally complex being such as homo sapien is too important to leave strictly to children to figure out the details of by accident, except for those children/teens who wish that. Those who wish an occasional guide or sympathetic older person to make their mistakes with so they are not ridiculed by their agemates, should have such a one available. And we stand ready for this or any other reasonable function. Please consider my words.

Anonymous 2 6 March 2011 - 2:00am / United States

I am a middle aged economic, foreign policy and (mostly) social politically conservative male from the US. Normally you would think that with that description I would come down on the opposite side of the debate here. But, as a celibate pedophile (attracted to both genders-primarily male tho)I have to agree to a large degree with the contentions here. I do disagree with the innocent notion that pedophiles exist because "some people" turn that way. Undoubtedly that is so in some cases, but my belief is quite different and quite simple. I believe that most people, as children, already are pedophiles from the start, and most "grow out of it" in time. The feelings I have are no different from and are completely unchanged (except less overwhelming and intense)from what they were as a young child. I was never molested (to the best of my knowledge)and consider myself "an original", i.e. not "made this way by anyone". My feelings have not changed in any significant respect from age 6 or 7 or so. Due entirely to my strict religious upbringing and vigilant parents I never played sexual games as a child (as most of you "normals" do), but had I had that knowledge and opportunity I would have--avidly. I am to this day a virgin every way you can look at it. And expect to remain so for decades. Perhaps, when aging is cured and reversed in decades to come, and common sense comes to reign in this area of law, then that will change, but that is my only hope for relief in the relationship sense. I do expect that aging will be cured--thankfully. But it will be a long time coming.

Meanwhile, as to the first subject, I believe that all normal children have sexual feelings. They are either for other children or for adults--or in most cases a jumbled up mixture of attractions.

If those who don't like this theory want to counteract this, then they must first prove that children DON'T have any sexual feelings or attractions at all. If so, when do these feelings begin? At 18, or 16 in parts of Europe--come on! They are there from the start. Then the question becomes-are the sexual feelings legitimate? The question ITSELF is illegitimate. They do exist and are universal, as universal as any other form of hunger--deal with it--accept it--move on. Next is: who do you want it to be for? The choices are human or animal. If you choose "human"--and I hope you did--then there are two first (albeit artificial) categories: "adult" or another "child". Assuming a person who hates pedophiles would choose for a child to be attracted only to other children--guess what? You just chose for them to be like ME! Welcome to MY world! You just wished for your child to become an exclusive pedophile (oh happy day). If you wish for them to be attracted to adults, then good for you--I agree (now think about what you just wished for)! If you choose for them to be only attracted to similar age companions (the most common and currently most safe thing for the young--the "safe default" that they choose because of socially limited options)--good luck in enforcing that 100%. And woebetide them if they "slip" a bit. And also realize that you just wished on them an individually distinctive (and parentally uncontrollable) mixture of choices 1 and 2.

The bottom line is, individual sexual attraction is highly personal and unmanageable by even parents--let alone governments. Better to stand on the shore and control the winds or tides--with edicts, bans and pompous proclamations. It is more effective and at least lives aren't destroyed. The same goes for the final "choice" for the controlling parent or government police state official: controlling the gender a child is attracted to--the same or opposite. Good luck on that too. Better to aim your magic wand at the birds and say fly this way or that.

As for the question of keeping legal (or in some nations) re-legalizing virtual porn as a stopgap to prevent molestation. That is helpful, it won't stop everyone, but is at least a start. I personally could never do anything to make a child uncomfortable anyway, and I can also say that neither virtual nor real porn (what little I have ever seen) has EVER made me want to do anything illegal to a child.

In fact the virtual stuff is, IMO, a fairly good stopgap for the real thing for some. That said, I believe that non-hardcore, nudity only or at most softcore sensuality based pics and videos should be excused. At least as long as it can be proven that the child wasn't tricked or harmed in any way and has no objection to publication. If there is ANY question as to these issues or any other relevant issues, then wait till age of majority and then if the child, as an adult, wishes to allow them to be sold in exchange for royalties then who can say no? The same for the more explicit stuff, as long as there is no connotation of force or harm of any kind.

As for possession--like was said, the horse is already out of the barn. Prosecute those who made it, maybe those who try to make money from distributing it--leave the possessors alone. We have a saying in the US regarding self-fulfilling prophecies, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." As the poor Libyans are finding out the hard way, guns are necessary when revolution against oppression becomes necessary (Europe will find this out too someday, sadly). If only the outlaws (who presumably don't care about national freedom) have weaponry, then who will safeguard freedom? Also, when outlaws are the only counter force to an over-controlling government the so-called "reasons" for gunbanning look artificially reason based, and the people have nothing to conduct a revolution with.

Likewise, when all legitimate outlets and means of expression for pedophiles are erased, then the few of us that are revealed are usually the ones doing something heinous, and so the laws look "reason based" tho they really are not. Also, you lose all contact with people such as me who are good, society backing, law abiding citizens. We just go deep into hiding and try to wait out the persecution. Like I said before, it is to the point with me that, since my late teens/early twenties, I have known my ONLY hope was the cure for aging. That has sustained me for over twenty years. I am only halfway thru my average lifespan, I can wait another 40 years, during which I expect to take the cure for aging, after which I can wait out the bigotry and prejudice forever--and if I live, I shall do exactly that. Nothing lasts forever.

Or the Orwellian laws on sexuality could be changed--now (or start to be changed), and I could re-enter the discussion in the open. I don't bite, and I don't hide around in alleys in a trench coat with candy in my pockets. Don't fear me, I am on your side. Be on MY side and we can preserve western freedom together. If the government can persecute OUR sexuality today, it can persecute YOURS tomorrow. Are you sure you are COMPLETELY conventional in every respect? The concept of governmental interference in individual, consent based sexuality has been legitimized, so NOTHING can be prohibited by the people until it is de-legitimized and only harm, rape, force of any kind and trickery is prosecuted. Most of of us, I think, would support those factors being prosecuted, but not loving relationships based on reasonably knowledgeable consent. Free us, and guard our freedom, and we can be your canary in the mine, and your own freedom is assured forever.

Thank you, "Anonymous 2"

Ipsi Dixit 26 February 2011 - 3:57pm / United Kingdom

I agree with Anonymous, a badly-drawn cartoon or ever more realistic 'virtual' child pornography will not, ultimately, satisfy peoples desires. At best it will be a stop-gap measure that helps people cope with their sexual emotions - exactly like adult pornography does. Sooner or later people are going to want to act on their emotions.

My personal opinion is that the simple possession of child pornography should be decriminalised. Locking people up just for looking at pornography is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has already bolted.

Anonymous 27 January 2011 - 10:41am / UK

It's not a real solution. People who love children sexually have little interest in badly-drawn cartoons. The only long-term solution is legalisation and regulation of child sex and imagery, just like with illegal drugs. Child-lovers will find a way to fulfil their sexual desires, just as those who live adults do. Wouldn't it be better for children if it weren't in the illegal underworld?

Alberto Cuadra 20 January 2011 - 6:45pm / Canadá

the analogy of the cartoon violence. It stopped the violence in young and adults? Ridiculous is not going to stop pedophilia those dolls. And, as the caricatures of violence have only made this to soar even more, so it would be with the cartoons of child pornography. These will multiply more

Vera Gottlieb 20 January 2011 - 6:17pm / Germany

"Comics"??? I don't see anything funny here.

jasmin 20 January 2011 - 5:07pm / India

Not a good idea, I think! Words and pictures will fuel their imagination.Dick Swaab is wrong that this kind of literature will quell their desire to abuse innocent children. If words/comics are so harmless, then why ban Mein Kampf, or other hate and porn literature? Thought pollution is cause of any crime, and abusing children in reality or in comics is a deadly crime! I just do not understand why paedophiles should get this kind of patronage!

Anonymous 22 July 2014 - 1:01am

You don't understand. You can't understand. You don't see the world as someone like this does. You ARE born with it. It is always there. Even if a person can control it to the point that no one ever knows, its still there. These people do need help, I do need help. In some way. There needs to be understanding. Now, just to state it, NO, child abuse is not right! NO, child pornography is not right. These things are wrong, but that doesn't change my deepest inner thoughts, and now i'm left feeling souless and vile for something i don't really have control over. (my thoughts, not my actions)
Pedophile is a label, but when is someone a pedophile, because as far i see, the minute you're labeled pedophile, you might as well have abused a little one in broad daylight. You're treated just as harshly. You're just as evil and not worth anything thing more than a bullet to the head. EVERYONE DESERVES UNDERSTANDING. EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE.

redwuld 10 July 2012 - 9:59pm / uk

I agree entirely that the cartoons or stories will fuel the imagination but then so will walking down any street, going on holidays, driving along in a car. I really dont know. They have tried castration, but the offender still has hands, what then, amputation. Way back in the days when being gay was illegal, they had the same treatment as paedophiles do today, judges ordering gays to have hormone treatment, being imprisoned, and generally outcasts of society. Some of the things that were said of gay people back then is exactly the same as people say about paedophiles today. Lock em up and throw away the keys, put them all on an island where they can do no harm, and other such comments. I dont know what the answer is, maybe a scientist will build a realistic child robotic doll for paedophiles to use as a sex toy, rather like a blow up doll. That could stop millions of children from becoming victims

Post new comment

Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

RNW on Facebook

RNW Player

Video highlights

Ladies on the move
RNW is keen on featuring inspiring women in our target countries, women who...
What about men?
In many countries, men don't stick around to raise their children. This is...