Shut Up and Dance - Conflicted emotions
-
leiastarkiller — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 08:15 PM)
Well a digital image isn't necessarily animated. It could just mean a digital photograph. If you're only talking about animations with no actual children involved then I'm not as disgusted as I thought. It's still gross but no victims in that case.
-
laurendorward-990-190608 — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 12:55 AM)
Wouldn't work. They'd get bored of it and it would just stir up feelings for the real thing.
Pornography makes sexual urges worse.
The only real solution is chemical castration, and that wouldn't really work for female pedophiles. -
MissMisanthropist — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 05:26 PM)
Chemical castration doesn't always work for males either. A lot of them have reported still having the urges despite the fact that they can't get aroused. The thing is that it is possible, POSSIBLE, to treat people who are pedophiles and have never offended. The PROBLEM is that more than likely they will eventually offend because the material only holds them for so long. Though it's interesting you brought up female pedophiles. This show seemed to completely ignore the fact that any person other than a man could be a pervert or unfaithful or whatever which annoyed me.
-
toricrawford — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 11:07 AM)
While he might have an innate sexual fondness for children that one could argue he was born with and has no control over, what you refer to as a sexual proclivity for children, this 100% does not release him from being responsible for his choice to act upon it. He was looking at pictures of children. Where did those pictures come from? What children are in the pictures, and why were they posted? There are sick, twisted people who cater to pedophiles and physically, emotionally, psychologically harm children in order to supply pedophiles just like Kenny. Kenny's desire to look at pictures of children absolutely harms children. He is absolutely responsible for his actions which directly causes children to be harmed. He doesn't have to touch a child to cause harm. That doesn't mean I didn't sympathize with his plight; he was a sympathetic character- he was meant to be, but he did harm children, and I expect they were young children as was alluded to when he interacted with the young girl in the restaurant, and by the way his mom was freaking out.
-
danavenell — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 11:13 AM)
What if they were just drawings of children? What if they are a collection of images taken from what some idiots put up of their own children half-naked on the beach or in the bath on Facebook (which I always report). Is a child suffering then? (Not that it's ok to wank over them).
My answer to child porn is that every pedophile that gets caught, they should take their child photos and photoshop them doing all the sex stuff. Then other pedos looking for child porn would find that. I have written to the government with my idea but they have not replied yet. -
PeterMarkoff — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 02:08 PM)
what's wrong with naked children in Facebook? i guess you report also breastfeeding mothers
i am glad i live in Europe and certainly not in place you live where people are obsessed with pedophilia and anything innocent is blown out of proportions
the reason i don't put photos of my child to Facebook is because it deserves privacy, but it has nothing to do with being naked or not -
danavenell — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 02:30 PM)
what's wrong with naked children in Facebook?
They have not consented to be seen, possibly in a sexual light, by loads of people.
I'm against the sharing of any children on FB too, though i don't report it because its not against FB's rules. But i do think those kids haven't consented to have their whole lives shared on the internet and i am very glad my childhood was not broadcast to various friends, relatives and strangers. -
PeterMarkoff — 9 years ago(November 01, 2016 01:59 AM)
well their parents are their legal guardians so they are deciding their consent and they should be aware of consequences of sharing children photos online, it should not be up to anyone else to decide this
-
trigun_78 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:23 AM)
Well what I am wondering is what are the laws here? He is clearly underaged. He said hes not old enough to legally drive yet, he just took the test or whatever. So if hes underage, looking at underage porn, how does the law work there? Is it illegal for minors to look at other naked minors?
-
Lauren-m-bonner — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:30 AM)
A minor can get in legal trouble for sending sexts from a minor, for example if a 16 year old girl takes naked pics and sends them to her 16 year old boyfriend she can get in trouble for distributing child pornography and he can get in trouble for viewing it. I think the main character would get in even more trouble then the example above because it is implied that he was looking at much younger minors.
-
bydo1492 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:45 AM)
Working in the fast food place means he's at least 16. 16 is our legal age.
At first I was like "a teenage boy waving a wank to internet porn, what's the big deal about that?" I wonder how the big paedophile new he was talking to another of his kind? Maybe in a takes one to know one kind of way. -
Lauren-m-bonner — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 04:37 PM)
Was the episode supposed to be in the US? There are several cases of this happening involving 16 year olds in the US. Here's just one example: http://atlantadailyworld.com/2015/09/09/high-school-teen-faces-10-years-in-prison-for-sexting-female-classmate/