Barbara Amiel responds to Steubenville.

[Aethian]

Who the hell is Barbara Amiel?

That has been my question. I've never heard of her till now.

[Peppergirl]

....



There's no rational reaction to this. This is just...amazing on every wrong level.

This. Times 10.

The only reaction I'm having is nausea. And not just due to the article itself. I'll leave it at that.

[BlaqueKatt]

Who the hell is Barbara Amiel? She doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed whoever she is.

according to wikipedia:

Barbara Joan Estelle Amiel, Baroness Black of Crossharbour is a British journalist, writer, and socialite. She is also the wife of former media baron and convicted felon Conrad Black

The only thing she apparently laments about her husband's fraud conviction is the loss of her social life, and not being able to spend money she didn't have(she grew up poor you see, so she had to spend 3 million to decorate her condo)

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I agree, but is there any proven treatment for this kind of problem? Perhaps more research should be done to find one, but until then, I can't think of any effective help one can get by going into a clinic...

But how is there supposed to be any research if all the pedophiles are too terrified to ask for help?

There are plenty of methods that therapists and psychologists can implement to help pedophiles control their urges without having the bottle them up, and having someone so simply talk to without being judged as "EVIL, FILTHY, CHILD MOLESTER" would also probably help them considerably.

[TheHuckster]

But how is there supposed to be any research if all the pedophiles are too terrified to ask for help?

It's a chicken and egg problem. Psychologists are not going to research until there are pedophiles willing to be more open about their problems, and pedophiles are not going to be more open about their problems until psychologists look at this deeper and more seriously.

[HYHYBT]

At worst, maybe it's an unchangeable condition, but then it seems like it would still be better to have some sort of support system, help them find non-harmful outlets, etc.

[wolfie]

Now see, this is where I'm in favour of firing someone
Out of a cannon
Into orbit.

I'd say take her to a ceramics factory and fire her there.

[kamn]

I agree that the producers should be the ones we focus our attention on, since the are the ones who are actively abusing the children, but the people who consume their products are still guilty of a crime, and should be prosecuted.

And what crime would that be? Viewing the bare flesh of a human being under a certain age? How is that a crime, when viewing the bare flesh of a human being above that age isn't a crime, nor is the viewing of bare flesh of any animal of that age (either human or animal years). I'm not saying that child porn should be legal and everything is roses, but I can't think of a logical reason why VIEWING pics of it should be a crime. I don't like the thought of it, of people viewing such images, of course, but then again, I don't like the thought of people getting whipped, or calling themselves "sub-human", which is legal and dandy. Consent might be an issue, but consent plays part in the MAKING of those images, not in viewing them.
Maybe I'm missing something vital ...

As to the pedophile problem, make such confessions part of doctor-patient confidentiality? Wouldn't that be the logical solution to the problem, as Ambrosia said...?

All that said, the producers of child porn should burn. That kind of stuff messes with a person's mind...

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Kamn;

If something was created and or received in an illegal manner, possessing it is typically illegal.

Someone stole a TV, then sold it to you. You are in possession of a stolen item, which can get you in trouble if you can't prove you didn't know it was stolen.

While I agree that viewing child porn if it is completely drawn (AKA no children harmed) shouldn't be illegal, I fully agree with child porn that has real children in it being illegal.

[Ginger Tea]

Many years ago, my mum was a carer for different adults with learning dissabilities and one such 60-70 odd year old also liked the children, she did not work much with him that I recall, perhaps she requested a transfer.
Outwardly he was a sweet old man, but the dos and don'ts were quite specific, although to my knowledge (atleast I don't recall my mum saying otherwise) he was not interested in or had not actually physically assualted any children, but could and would whack off to images if he could get them.

These were not child porn images, these were the toy section from the argos catalogue depicting children playing with toys and if I recal, decades ago, clothing catalogues also showed children photographed in the underwear sold, so men like this did not need to find some seedy underbelly to get their porn, it was readily available via mail order catalogues in the same way that horny teenagers would go to the female underwear section from the same book.

[BlaqueKatt]

And what crime would that be? Viewing the bare flesh of a human being under a certain age? How is that a crime

it's normally not "just viewing naked flesh", it's viewing adults having sexual intercourse with children. Or adults forcing shildren to have sexual contact with each other through coercion, AKA child rape.

Kamn;
If something was created and or received in an illegal manner, possessing it is typically illegal.

Yup any pornography starring Traci Lords is illegal, and owning it will get you a hefty prison term, she lied about her age.

[Gravekeeper]

Gah, what a quagmire of a topic this turned into.

I'll go with the "If the product is a result of an illegal act, possessing it should be illegal" line of thought here. THough I don't think possession should carry the same or greater sentence than production and should come with some sort of mandatory psychological help rather than mandatory life long persecution. Which only increases the risk of re-offence.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the witch hunt and the stigma surrounding it ( Especially in the US ) increase the rate of such crimes, not decrease it. As long as the spectrum is absolute black and white you're causing more problems than your solving. At this point the term "pedophile" is thrown around willy nilly to describe anyone that so much as glances at someone under the age of 18 even if they are legally above the age of consent. Regardless of the fact thats the total opposite of the definition of pedophilia.

There's a huge difference between someone that is aroused by children but knows its wrong so would never hurt a child and someone who is aroused by children but has psychological problems that undermine their sense of morality or impulse control. But we don't offer any kind of help to the former. We persecute him like he's the latter.

If you insert ANY other crime into this scenario its ridiculous. Even ones more horrible than child abuse. Its treating the guy that would love to strangle his boss to death, like he actually strangled his boss to death. Its bordering on thought crime.

There's 3 types of people here ( For ANY crime ):
1) People that want to do something but won't because they know its wrong.
2) People who want to do something, but won't because they know its wrong but may do it anyway in a moment of weakness/passion/desperation
3) People who don't give a fuck and do it anywhere because they're sociopaths, etc.

You can't treat 1 and 2 like 3. You don't even have to worry about 1. We've ALL been 1 at some point. As for 2, 2 needs help and we should provide help before they offend. But instead we treat 2 like 3, increasing the risk 2 will do something because if the whole world is against 2 anyway, why the fuck shoudl 2 care anymore? We prevent 2 from even seeking help even though 2 is aware they have a problem and need it to avoid committing a terrible crime.

Thus is the problem. If people were really interested in protecting children, we would have a support system for 2. But people are more interested in punishment rather than prevention or rehabilitation. We want to punish the living shit out of anyone that even shows the faintest hint of thinking about possibly doing something to or with children or teenagers.

The latter of which is particularly ironic. Since western culture does everything in its power to sexualize the living hell out of teenagers. But then we utterly destroy anyone who dares even comment on them being sexy. Well, men anyway. If you're a woman, have at it. No one gives a shit then. You'll be lucky if you even get jail time.

We are a fucked up society >.>

[wolfie]

Yup any pornography starring Traci Lords is illegal, and owning it will get you a hefty prison term, she lied about her age.

From what I've heard, ONE of her "blue" movies is legal - she turned 18 shortly before leaving the business.

[smileyeagle1021]

At this point the term "pedophile" is thrown around willy nilly to describe anyone that so much as glances at someone under the age of 18 even if they are legally above the age of consent. Regardless of the fact thats the total opposite of the definition of pedophilia.

Thank you for pointing that out. I've before been told that if I'm not careful people will think I'm a pedophile... because I've openly said things like "if I didn't know he was only 17, I'd be interested". Even showing a lack of interest in teenagers can be damning if you admit that they have qualities you would be interested in if they wer adults. Well hell, by that standard, anyone who likes blonde women is a pedophile because a lot of teenagers are blonde. Same for people who like men with blue eyes, or heavy women, or short men, or... the list goes on.

[TheHuckster]

Thank you for pointing that out. I've before been told that if I'm not careful people will think I'm a pedophile... because I've openly said things like "if I didn't know he was only 17, I'd be interested". Even showing a lack of interest in teenagers can be damning if you admit that they have qualities you would be interested in if they wer adults. Well hell, by that standard, anyone who likes blonde women is a pedophile because a lot of teenagers are blonde. Same for people who like men with blue eyes, or heavy women, or short men, or... the list goes on.

There is also a difference between "She is a very pretty girl" when referencing a teenager and "I'd love to pork her" while salivating over the fantasy. I'm glad my fiancee knows the difference. She's even asked me, "[her 16-year-old cousin] is cute, isn't she?" and I comfortably answered, "Yes, she is" without any judgement. It's because she knows when I agree to that, I'm speaking on a more general level.