Washington (CNN) — More than 50 members of a child pornography ring who engaged in what authorities describe as "horrific" and "unspeakable" crimes have been arrested for sexually exploiting children from 12 years old to as young as infants.

Video

Network That Preyed on Children Is Broken | NYT

Published: August 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Federal investigators announced on Wednesday that they had dismantled a sophisticated global network of pedophiles who traded pornographic videos and images of children as young as infants over the Internet, using encryption and proxy servers to evade detection.

About 600 people around the world were members of the online bulletin board “Dreamboard” before it shut down this spring amid the investigation, officials said. The Justice Department announced that 72 people had been charged so far, including more than 50 already arrested in the United States and abroad.

The network specialized in graphic and often violent images of the sexual abuse of children under the age of 12, including infants. It created an incentive among its members to create new files by kicking them out of the network if they did not upload material at least once every 50 days, and by granting them greater access to its archives if they created their own child pornography, said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer.

“Words cannot describe how horrific the enterprise’s alleged crimes were,” Mr. Breuer said. “Dreamboard was extreme even among online child abuse forums. So-called ‘super hard-core’ images — those depicting adults having violent sexual intercourse with ‘very young kids’ — were highly valued.” [...]

Finally.

• Real children (not adolescents), really young,
• real intercourse (not sexy posing).
• Real victimization (not voluntary sexting or voluntary joyful photo sessions)

Exactly what the unitiated person envisions when the world "child pornography" is used. And they actually encouraged production of more material through actually abusing children. And one section of the board was specifically about children in pain with tears. (level 10 on the Copine scale)

It is shocking that the feminist and religious anti child pornography crusaders devalue the suffering of truly abused children by conflating

1. such horrible true abuse of children with
2. adolescent sexting (self photos) and
3. adolescents in Leotards dancing provocatively (Knox vs. USA).

All theses 3 are called child porn. In cases 2 and 3, there is no child, no porn, but it is called "child porn". Thus , with such manipulative language the populace can be whipped up into a frenzy. It makes them believe that harmless adolescent erotica are violent depictions of child sex.

More Human Stupidity Analysis further below.

The investigation began in 2009, and officials said they were trying to identify the victims

Human-Stupidity Analysis

1. We are surprised we found out about this shocking case months after it turned public. Somehow, amidst all the child pornography witch hunt frenzy, this extreme case did not call an commensurate amount of attention
2. Finally, amongst all the victimless child pornography  [children photographing themselves masturbating, sexting adolescents, fully dressed 15 year old dancers (Knox vs. USA), manga drawings], finally real penetrative child sexual abuse. And members even encourage further actual abuse. Finally one true case where the worst expectations of the child pornography inquisitions became true. And we don’t hear much about it.
3. Those who really produce abusive child pornography deserve punishment for violently abusing pre-pubertal children. Enough laws always were in place for that, child pornography laws are not really needed. Though, we admit, in this case CP laws make prosecution easier.
4. We suspect that the worst CP, freshly produced penetrative sex with young prepubertal children in tears, is just a very small percentage. We also suspect that the lesser members did not have access to that. We suspect that the majority of the CP (child pornography) material found is just the garden variety of adolescents having normal age appropriate sex, joyful posing and more. We can not know, because this analysis is not provided.
5. Note that no financial initiative was given nor needed for the production of CP (child pornography).
6. The lesser members, who did not actively engage in child abuse, nor actively encouraged it, do they need 10 year to 200 year prison sentences? Remember Professor Milton Diamond proved, in peer reviewed academic papers, that freely accessable child pornography greatly reduced child sexual abuse in half a dozen countries. The mechanisms seems to be that the pedophiles watch pornographic material, masturbate and thus take the pressure off their sexual drive. They act out their phantasy with pornographic material instead of with real children.
7. Dr. Milton Diamond suggests to use artificially produced child pornography (drawings, photoshop, young looking adults, etc.). Human-Stupidity suggests to additionally use

1. Child porn that was produced without vicitms. Sexting photos, legally produced 15 year old porn from the 70ies in Holland,
2. Old child pornography could be grandfathered. Whatever has been produced before a certain cutoff date is legal, because no new vicitmization will happen (except for the voodoo theory of CP). This site must have a HUGE database of pretty much all CP in existence and could provide CP for decades to come without need to victimize new children to produce more CP.

‘

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, "To give you an example of the scope of this forum, the capture and analysis of the forum revealed that the board may have been the vehicle for the distribution of up to 123 terabytes of child pornography, which is roughly equivalent to nearly 16,000 DVDs. … Additional media recovered from the targets arrested in the United States alone has been found to contain over one million images of child pornography."   CNN

Video

McDonald’s finds a way around San Francisco’s ‘Happy Meal ban’

San Francisco’s so-called "Happy Meal ban" goes into effect Thursday, but McDonald’s has already found a way around it.

The ordinance prohibits fast-food restaurants from including free toys with children’s meals that don’t comply with nutritional standards.

McDonald’s answer? It will charge 10 cents for the toy. The proceeds will be donated to Ronald McDonald House, the company’s charity for children with cancer.

It would be more behooving to start a charity for childhood diabetes and other obesity related diseases.  An NGO for promotion of exercise also could help undo the damage.

[...] that McDonald’s response "allows them to continue marketing this unhealthful food to children in the midst of an obesity crisis."

Eric Mar, the member of the Board of Supervisors who led adoption of the law, called the 10-cent charge a "marketing ploy," but he told The Associated Press that he didn’t plan to seek any changes to address the tactic.

Maybe he should change his plans. We are talking hundreds of millions of children, world wide, heading towards a life of obesity, disease and early death. And almost nothing is being done about it.

• "Child Food-Porn" (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy
• Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food
• Food Porn arouses Lust for Food with No Nutritional Value

McDonald’s, said all of the company’s U.S. stores would offer Happy Meals with apples and smaller servings of french fries by March.

We are amazed how McDonald’s escapes through a loop hole huge as a barn door and can continue to cause grave damage to children. The damage is not just the one happy meal, but conditioning malleable children to a life-long preference of wrong foods.

Human-Stupidity is amazed, how, on the other hand, any loop-hole gets closed to prevent people from seeing so called child porn, due to voodoo theory. In spite of evidence by professor Milton Diamond that Child pornography viewing reduces child abuse.

We would like to invert the situation: seducing children to grievous bodily harm should be a crime, whose damage has been clearly proven.

Should Parents of Obese Kids Lose Custody? Yes. They expose children to harm. Our entire system needs to be revamped. Feeding children into obesity, allowing them to sit all day on video games and in boring schools, all this needs to be seriously changed. Social workers, advertising, public relations, all need to work together to save our children.

How many vegetables are in this picture? Yes, 3. Strangely Coca Cola is not yet defined a vegetable, but it seems that french fries already were defined vegetables.

In case you were wondering where all of the healthy vegetables were on your child’s lunch menu at school, they’re in the pizza they’ve been eating everyday. Congress recently declared that Pizza constitutes a vegetable requirement even though it only contains an average of two tablespoons of tomato sauce. inquisitr

Who needs leafy greens and carrots when pizza and french fries will do?  In an effort many 9-year-olds will cheer, Congress wants pizza and french fries to stay on school lunch lines and is fighting the Obama administration’s efforts to take unhealthy foods out of schools. KSPR

"While it’s unfortunate that some members of Congress continue to put special interests ahead of the health of America’s children, USDA remains committed to practical, science-based standards for school meals," says a USDA spokesperson. Newser

Like many of you, when I heard this I thought it had to be a headline from The Onion. But sadly I’ve realized that there are too many agri-businesses and politicians who are willing to allow our childhood obesity epidemic to continue. They don’t care that our military is telling us that young people are too fat to fight, with only one in four meeting the fitness requirements for military service. They don’t care that one in three children under the age of 18 will develop Type II Diabetes within their lifetime. They don’t care that the rate of childhood obesity has doubled since 1980.   TheStateColumn

Human-Stupidity analysis

1. Children are endangered, made obese, sick, diabetic for life. Not only is this tolerated, active advertising for child food porn is legal.
2. This dangerous deadly child abuse (yes people die earlier because of obesity) is a world wide epidemic and almost nothing is done against it.
3. This human stupidity is "normal". The entire world is getting obese due to wrong nutrition and lack of exercise. And it starts with children, their parent’s mistakes, and child food porn propaganda
4. *Language abuse helps to deceive the common person into accepting rules that otherwise would create more resistance. A law saying that a healthy meal has to contain milk, meat, and pizza would cause more resistance.
5. It is all about influential special interest groups! Healthy food brings economic benefits to small farmers, small enterprises, and of course to the entire (healthier) population.
6. Hundreds of millions of children get sick because of false nutrition they were unable to give informed consent to. On the other hand, the "best interest of the child" is used as pretext to condemn men to ruinous child (wife) support payments, debtor’s prison. Alleged concern about children’s welfare is used as excuse for the child porn witch hunt and legal morass created around teenage sexuality. All this is hypocrisy

• Did the Reagan-era USDA really classify ketchup as a vegetable?

(Reuters) – The House of Representatives dealt a blow to childhood obesity warriors on Thursday by passing a bill that abandons proposals that threatened to end the reign of pizza and French fries on federally funded school lunch menus.

The scuttled changes, which would have stripped pizza’s status as a vegetable and limited how often French fries could be served, stemmed from a 2010 child nutrition law calling on schools to improve the nutritional quality of lunches served to almost 32 million U.S. school children.

The action is a win for the makers of frozen French fries and pizza and comes just weeks after the deep-pocketed food, beverage and restaurant industries successfully weakened government proposals for voluntary food marketing guidelines to children.  

"It’s an important victory," said Corey Henry, spokesman for the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI). That trade association lobbied Congress on behalf of frozen pizza sellers like ConAgra Foods Inc. and Schwan Food Co and French fry makers McCain Foods Ltd and J.R. Simplot Co, the latter best known as a supplier to fast-food company McDonald’s Corp.

"Our concern is that the standards would force companies in many respects to change their products in a way that would make them unpalatable to students," Henry said.  Reuters

It is time now technicians learn what child pornography is. Do you know? You think child pornography is photos of 7 year olds in explicit sexual activities? You really have no clue about the law!

• 17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition

17 year olds have become "children", department store children’s swim suit catalogue photos become child porn when collected by a person who seems to have prurient reasons to collect such photos. Knox vs. USA determined that photos of 15 year olds in Leotards can constitute child pornography

• Copine/ Sap Scales, Dost Test: Severity of child porn

Can you imagine all the cell phone repair-men now are required by law to turn in adolescents for taking their own photograph or having a photograph the girl friend sent?  Sexting teens in Oregon will prefer to destroy defective cell phones to getting free warranty repairs that might land them in jail.

• Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos
• Sexting children Margarite, Isaiah in Lacey, Washington avoid jail

We wonder why the law does not include teachers and parents in their duty to report and criminalize adolescents. With some effort, 20-30% of adolescents could be criminally persecuted just for sexting. Remember, receiving the photos is a heinous crime, too.

Oregon’s Senate approved a bill that requires computer technicians to report images of child pornography

The measure passed the state Senate on a 24-1 vote Friday and now heads to the governor for signature or veto.

Technicians who believe they may have spotted images of child porn must notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the state Department of Human Services or law enforcement. Failure to do so could result in a misdemeanor charge.

Only a misdemeanor? We think technicians should get mandatory felony charges </sarcasm>

We are surprised, that in this day and age where toddlers play with cell phones, no 7 year olds have yet been arrested for photographing themselves nude or their doctor plays. It will happen!

• 6-year-old charged with sexual assault for consensual doctor play

And don’t forget all the family photos of babies taking bath, changing diapers. They all need to be analyzed painstakingly by police and and highly paid defense lawyers to see if baby poses in a way that the perverted mind of a public prosecutor considers sexually enticing or provocative.

• Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution 

Privacy laws? Technicians snooping our income tax return?

So the technician now is encouraged to snoop cell phones and computers to find child pornography? What if he finds the income tax return? Insider information about the stock market? Or stories about adult love affairs? Is he not violating the privacy of his customer?

Everyone now risks 10 years in jail and  has to be wary when

• crossing international borders with a computer or cell phone
• developing photos at Wal-Mart and now
• having computers and cell phone repaired.

Reporting laws create suffering for adults and children

A lot more suffering will be created. Not only for innocent children accused of sexting, of adults inadvertently getting child porn  photos,

• Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)

Lots of so called child porn certainly does not cause any damage to the minor when produced, for example taking one’s own nude photos, or boyfriend and girlfriend engaging in legally allowed sex (age of consent of 16 or 14)

• Jailed for possession of video of himself masturbating when he was 12
• Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them
• Eek! A Male! Pedophile hysteria hurts and kills children!

Well, and sometimes our zeal goes a bit overboard

• "Operation Protect Our Children" mistakenly shuts down 84,000 Sites with no child porn

Child pornography reporting laws don’t make children safer

Only the perverted logic of feminists and religious zealots can invent the lore that (even inadvertently) downloading or looking at some pictures somehow hurts a person thousands of miles away that is not even aware of the guy’s action.

• "Watching child porn victimizes the child". The Voodoo science of child pornography laws"

So 95% of so called child porn never endangered any child, because it really is adolescent erotica, involves legal acts, …. There is small percentage of true child pornography that serves as the excuse for the witch hunt. It did hurt a child at some time, but its viewing will not hurt it again as some mystics claim.

• Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: "Adolescents and young adults are no children"

Equally as viewing photos of stoning, whipping, clubbing to death or beheading of minors will not re-victimize the victim of violence.

Do NOT report movies of children whipped by Taliban, stoned to death, beheaded by terrorists or of self mutilating jackass wannabees

Our sex obsessed society feels comfortable about violence, vigilantism, killing and mayhem.

• Adolescent girl-fights with injuries: cheer on! Nudity, love and sex are crime and victimization.
• Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!
• Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.
• Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years)

Do report academy award winning movie "The Tin Drum" when in Oklahoma

• Child Porn on Australian WTV television (and in video stores and academy award winning movies "The Tin Drum")?

By conventional logic, Brooke Shields must be a total wreck. Her movies and photos have been seen by millions and still are all over the net. And her movies "Taxi Driver" and "Blue Lagoon" clearly are child porn by today’s standards. She still gets re-victimized tens of thousands of times per day.

• Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?

Many minors were on the cover of Playboy magazine or on page 3 of British tabloids in the 1970s. Now this needs to be reported as child porn.

Child  porn prohibition likely to cause increased child abuse

World renowned academic researcher is getting ostracized for his scientific research that showed that

• Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

He suggested to use artificially created child porn so no children would be harmed. We suggest to add so called child porn depicting that was clearly created without hurting children, and to grandfather child porn that has been around for decades, where no new damage is being done.

Close the loophole: outlaw unborn child porn

A tasteless article poking fun at the child pornography prosecution craze:

• Unborn Child Porn is Unborn Child Abuse. Outlaw fetal abuse!

Start reporting REAL avoidable damage caused to children

Pregnant women drink alcohol,cause brain damage in offspring with no legal consequences or social ostracism. Nothing is done about families and food industry conspire to create a generation of obese diabetics who will die 15 years prematurely

• "Child Food-Porn" (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy"

Is our sex obsessed society punishing sexual child abuse too severely,
compared to serious bodily harm to children?

Julie Carr Performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years.
Compare: killing baby: 4 years; causing permanent brain damage: 2 years.

We will be attacked now with untrue accusations of "promoting child abuse". Which, of course, we are not doing. We don’t say Julie Carr should go unpunished.

Warning: not safe for children. Do not continue reading if you are easily offended.

We try to avoid explicit language, but even CNN uses some semi-explicit language

We are wondering what is less damaging to the infant:

1. a mother licking baby in the wrong places. (17 years in jail) plus 10 years supervision plus life long sex offender registration
2. physical abuse: violent shaking of an infant causing permanent life long brain damage (2 years jail). Or killing infant (4-5 years in jail). No registration in murderous-nanny-registry to prevent future work as nanny.

No, we are not condoning either behavior. We don’t think it is normal, healthy behavior. Sorry for questioning conventional wisdom and asking taboo questions.

If we suggested killing Julie Carr vigilante style, to mete out a death sentence, or 4 life sentences without parole, that would be acceptable.

But suggesting to even think about lower sentencing for certain kinds of child sexual abuse, is a no-no. We have been warned that this would be dangerous. We hope we will not attract vigilante threats.

But, our sense of justice, our sense of scientific curiosity compels us to ask these questions: Are some licks in inappropriate places really warrant much longer jail terms then violent brain and spinal cord trauma? What kind and how much damage is being caused in the infant by mom licking in inappropriate places? No, we don’t promote or condone such behavior.

And how many other so called "child rapists’ did not do more then Julie Carr? (Did we mention that we don’t condone this behavior, but are opposed to misleadingly call fondling and licking "rape").

Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

[Julie] Carr used a webcam to deliver four live videos of herself performing oral sex on her youngest daughter, according to the documents. The videos were sent to Nicholas Wilde, then 19, in West Midlands, England, whom Carr had met on an internet dating site, the documents said.
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

We were surprised that the crime was labeled correctly:
"oral sex on an infant"  and and not the usual "rape of infant".

In case you don’t know, any sexual activity, like kissing or fondling with a minor is defined as "rape". Probably it would sound too weird and incredible to write "Mother raped infant daughter". If it were perpetrated by a man, certainly the headline would read "Man raped his infant daughter".   And everyone would imagine the guy having committed more atrocious acts then licking a baby’s privates.  (No, we don’t approve of this!)

Compare this headline:  Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. Whereupon Human-Stupidity provokingly asked "What kind of rape"?  (No, we don’t condone Woolverton’s behavior).

We did not want to be sexually explicit, so we refrained from the graphic terminology CNN used in this case here. But we suspect Woolverton probably engaged in similar activities as mother Julie Carr, like oral sex and manual indecent touching.  In Woolverton’s case, we can not know, due to modern misleading language definitions of rape.

We will be crucified for this. People will falsely accuse us of condoning sexual abuse of children. We do not condone Woolverton’s or Julie Carr’s behavior..

Rather our message is 2 fold

1. Don’t mislead! Use correct clear language: Saying "raping a baby"  is meant to confuse people into thinking he did worse things then "oral sex on an infant". NO! we are not saying that oral sex on an infant is right. We are saying: call a spade a spade. Call crimes by their names, don’t mislead the public by abusing and re-defining the language. The real crime is bad enough. No exaggeration is needed.
2. Re-analyze our sex-obsession. Are the punishments for sexual non violent acts overblown? This issue has already been discussed above.

If Carr (the mother) had licked the baby on the hand, the feet, the arm, even the belly, nobody would think anything of it. It would be perfectly legal, normal, and morally acceptable. She was probably unaware that putting the tongue in the wrong place would be considered a heinous crime, much worse then killing or permanently disabling her infant. Quite likely she was stupid and thoughtless, but probably she is in no way a carreer criminal and long term danger. (Did we mention that we don’t condone Julie Carr’s behavior?)

"I want to say that I am sorry," she told the court. "I never meant to hurt anyone in my family, and I have regretted it ever since."

Once released, Carr will receive a mandatory 10 years of supervision where, along with checks for drugs and alcohol, her computer and internet use will be monitored, the documents said. She will also be registered as a sex offender
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

• We wish that murderous nannies with anger control problems had the same type of supervision and registry to make sure they will not cause further damage to children.
• We also wish that unbiased unencumbered free academic research can evaluate the amount of damage caused by different types of child sexual abuse. Even if the findings are not what society expects.
  • Since the prestigious Rind study was condemned unanimously by US Senate and Congress, researchers will be wise enough not to get unpopular taboo results that can terminate their carreer. 
  • Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii) is a rare example of a politically incorrect study that escaped censorship, probably because Dr. Diamond is already Emeritus (retired).

Related articles

A former Army Major from our area was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison for a horrific crime: raping a baby.

Federal authorities found 30,000 images and 100 videos of child pornography on the computer of 35 year-old Daniel Woolverton.

Daniel Woolverton was a 1997 West Point graduate, with a career as an Army trial lawyer that appeared to be on the fast track. Now, hes behind bars after raping a boy as young as three months old, an act he videotaped.

"Well, its repulsive," said an Arlington neighbor.

"Raping an infant? Oh boy. Thats terrible," said another. wusa9.com/news/

Raping a 3 month old infant! We found this terrible, too. So terrible that we consulted a medical doctor to inquire about the consequences of forcible penetrative rape of an infant. He confirmed our suspicion: The absolute mismatch in size would cause extreme, grave, life threatening injuries in an immature infant. So, how come, there is no mention of such grave injury?

We remembered Definition of "Rape": When a "Rape" is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word "Rape": indecent touching of a minor is "rape". It is absolutely impossible for us to know what kind of activities Daniel Wolverton engaged in Our language lost its precision and its power. The new "rape" definition serves purely to mislead the public as to the nature of the crime. To incite the mob. 

Isn’t the truth enough? Most likely he did indecent touching and fumbling with an infant. Yes fumbling in places and ways he should not fumble. But it seems he did not engage in activities that would permanently hurt, mutilate and hospitalize the child.

Compare: Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years.)

Aren’t we insensitive? Defending a infant rapist? No, we don’t say what he did was right and defensible. We just say we should not mislead the public as to what he did. One thing is for sure. Thanks to the new definition of "rape", we can not know what he did.

Today, FBI executed a search warrant at Woolverton’s residence and seized a memory card that contains an image of an adult male engaging in sexually explicit conduct with an infant who appeared to be under one year of age. The infant has been identified by the FBI. A wristwatch visible on the adult male and items in the photo appear to link Woolverton as the adult in the photo. washingtondc.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/wfo101409.htm

The FBI report supports our suspicion. There probably was no true forcible, violent, penetrative rape.

So Human-Stupidity defends sexual abuse of toddlers? No! Just don’t use the word "rape" for fumbling because
the general public gets mislead, they understand something else

The abuse of our language

• Our language loses its precision.
• We don’t usually use one word for totally different actions.
• In law, in science, and in newspaper reports, we strive to be clear and precise.
• Our modern definition of "rape" is unclear and misleading. It has been changed manipulatively, away from the clear meaning it had since the ancient Roman and Greek empires.
• In the zeal to whip up punishment frenzy among the population, whe destroy our language, our capacity to communicate clearly. Everyone imagines a screaming infant being penetrated violently, while in reality it is probably just some quiet fumbling and fiddling around with a clueless infant. The infractor is probably not a monstrous child mutilator, but just a dumb inconsiderate, thoughtless, impulsive, abusive guy. Not to be defended as correct behavior, but not as heinous. 
• Isn’t the true crime bad enough? Sexually molesting a toddler. Do we have to exaggerate with incendiary misleading language? Is that necessary? Of course, that is not a mistake, it is intentional, it is meant to mislead manipulatively.

A child has been sexually abused, and Human-Stupidity cares about semantics? Yes.

• If we distort our language, just to make the sexual molestation seem worse then it is, then our language is losing its power. It is getting confusing, misleading. We lose the capacity to communicate clearly. We cannot know any more what is meant by "raping a baby".
• we agree that an infant can not consent to sexual behavior. But we contend that there still is a difference between "consenting" infant fiddling and violently abusing a screaming resisting infant. Even if, sensibly, at this age the consent is not valid, it still invalid consent is not the same as active screaming resistance.  We lost the capacity to differentiate. We know, we will be crucified for writing this. And we know that never ever a self respecting researcher could make an analysis that the amount of trauma of the former crime is much less then the second. The uproar about the Rind study made it clear that this was totally taboo. 

We are not defending what this guy did. We are not saying it is all right or he should go unpunished. We find it problematic that we have to keep repeating this, and still will be condemned and crucified as if we were condoning sexual abuse of infants.

Our main topic is: We are defending our language. We are defending our capacity to communicate clearly and truthfully.

Our sex-obsessed society thinks that non violent sexual fondling is worse then life long physical or brain damage

In our sex-obsessed society, creepy but non violent and non mutilating touching is considered much worse then potential life long mutilation and disability. And to make sure nobody questions this inversion of values, we have raped our language to mislead the masses into thinking that a real rape, in the classic sense of the word, has happened.

You can find nanny cam videos on youtube, where nanny shakes a baby./ Florida Babysitter Abuses 11 Month Old Baby / "SBS [Shaken Baby Syndrome] is often fatal and can cause severe brain damage, resulting in lifelong disability"

A baby also can not consent to eating unhealthy damaging food that will cause life long diabetes and his early death. Still, nobody jails irresponsible mothers for creating over-fed obese sick babies. Mothers are not even punished for drinking while pregnant and causing permanent brain damage (fetal alcohol syndrome).

Our society suffers from sex-obsession. Now if I had a kid I would rather have a guy sexually fiddle around with the baby 10 times, then some monster hitting, slapping, burning with scalding water or hot iron, or some nanny risking the health of my baby by shaking and throwing it around, or some prengnant woman causing fetal alcohol syndrome in my yet unborn child.

We lost our capacity to evaluate the amount of damage done by a crime. The hypothetical damage by a non violent sexual crime is considered worse then permanent life long brain damage or physical mutilation.

One more time, we don’t think he should not be unpunished, he should not have done what he did. But due to our language distortion, we lost the capacity to evaluate the real gravity of his crime. We think there is a major difference between sexual activity with an immature pre-pubescent child and a post-pubertal adolescent.

Woman killing a baby: 4 years. Man sexually fiddling with a baby 27 years

Do we have the right measuring stick? Are we obsessed about punishing non-violent sexual messing higher then life long brain damage? Do we have a gender bias punishing men harder? Compare:

Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years.)	Man non violently sexually fiddles with infant. No bodily damage was reported. Psychological damage possible but not proven. 27 years in jail plus future additional convictions for child porn etc.

• Greenburgh nanny sentenced for shaking baby [...] two years in state prison and three years of post release supervision on her July 2008 guilty plea to reckless assault on a child in the first degree. [...] As a result of the violent shaking, the baby suffered a subdural hematoma and diffuse rental hemorrhages, injuries that can lead to numerous, potential lifelong developmental challenges.
• Nanny sentenced to five years for shaking toddler to death
• Nanny Gets Four Years For Shaking Baby: severity of the injuries included multiple skull fractures and massive brain hemorrhages.
• New Study Finds That Many People Guilty of Child Abuse Get “Off the Hook” in Court | Shaken Baby Syndrome Attorney
• A woman knowingly drinks lots of alcohol when pregnant, and thus culpably giving birth to a permanently disfigured and mentally retarded child. Verdict: No crime, no jail

Compare this to

• Independence, MO —Two local men are going to federal prison on child pornography convictions. Both were sentenced Tuesday. Martin A. Cordry, 48, of Sugar Creek was sentenced to 40 years in prison without parole.
• A trucker arrested in Flagstaff for possession and transportation of child pornography has been sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison. Prosecutors say 61-year-old Richard Self was convicted last November on three counts of transportation of child pornography and three counts of possession of child pornography. The Arizona Daily Sun says Self was sentenced Monday to a 135-month term
• Travis Matthew, 26, pleaded guilty last September to receiving child pornography and was  sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.
• The former music minister at St. Eugene Catholic Church in Asheville was sentenced to 28 years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release in connection with a child pornography charge. [...] guilty plea to a single criminal count of production of child pornography,
• More examples: child porn witch hunt

Is there gender bias? Obsessive punishment for sexual deviations?

Think hard: maybe you took some indecent photos of yourself. Or your family album contains nunde photos mom took when you were a toddler.  Burn your childhood pictures while you still are out of jail!

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

1. This is one of the extreme cases of the child porn witch hunt.
   1. Totally uselessly causing trauma in innocent people,
   2. huge expenses in legal fees,
   3. bogging up police and law enforcement capacity for nonsensical persecution
2. Of course, the child porn prosecutions are meant to protect an innocent child “victim” from abuse. So 25 year old John Doe gets jailed to protect 12 year old John Doe from abusing himself? Or 12 year old John Doe gets protected from being re-victimized when 25 year old John Doe watches his own movie? Or 25 year old John Doe might have totally forgotten his old movie and not have watched it for a decade. Still, he needs to be jailed to be protected from victimization!? And of course, as a child abuser, he will most likely be raped in prison. How far has our logic and our legal system sunk.
3. Most normal people would agree that this is excessive zeal. Of course, then the question arises: where should the limit be drawn?
   • what kind of child porn should be punished?
   • should possession of depictions of legal acts really be punished?
   • Should people be punished for a video of child sexual activity that by all definitions was not abuse?
   • And does the possession of computer files, that are nothing but 0′s and 1′s really get people into jail for years? The USA has a tradition of freedom of expression that are getting more encroached upon. Human Stupidity analyzes this on other posts.
   • “Sticks and stones may break my bones (but words will never hurt me)”.  Should we not, in analogy, say: Sexual abuse may hurt me, but 0′s and 1′s in computer files will never hurt me. All this trauma could be avoided by scrapping all laws for possession. Punish abusers, not people who possess the photos.
   • Almost all so called “child porn” in reality is “adolescent nudity” or consensual “sexual activities” of sexually active teenagers. We are not not aware of any deaths due to child porn production. Most child porn is totally harmless, like adolescents taking their own photos, or formerly legal 16 year old sex films made legally in Holland 30 years ago.
   • On the other hand there was a death in the production of the following documentary:  Beating Death Of Derrion Albert,16,Caught On Video as described in Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV. Possession, production, and distributions are perfectly legal.
4. I wish to get confirmation of this story from a reputable news agency or newspaper, instead of a hearsay report.  But even if it were untrue, it could happen. It rings true. Similar things have happened, 15 year old girls get traumatized with sexting charges for harmless nude photos. So prosecuting an adult for the movies he took of himself 15 years ago, looks convincing and true

Some commentators at reddit remarked that he is stupid for still being with that girl. But by conventional wisdom she acted correctly. She found heinous child porn of a 12 year old masturbating and reported it to police.

PS: don’t miss the sex-positive reddit r/MensRightsMovement

Legalizing child pornography

is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

"Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic" Archives of Sexual Behavior. The official publication of the International Institute of Sex Research

Study carried out in Czech Republic confirms similar results in Japan and Denmark

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y  eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/s-lcp113010.php

Video (must see)
Hawaii Researcher Studies Effects Of Child Pornography.:Says Porn Lowers Sex Abuse Of Children. (must see Video)

As part of his research Diamond also looked at countries that have recently made child pornography illegal and said the rate of child sex abuse there is rising.

Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (HTML)

Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (PDF)

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children.
Source: Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

Amazingly a politically incorrect study made it past the radar and actually got published. We are against dogmatic Human-Stupidity. We favor unbiased free research to find the truth. Human-Stupidity.com is in no way devoted to the goal of defending child pornography for its own sake. BUT

Of course, only human-stupidity.com would dare to publish such a scientific result without backpedalling. The mainstream press, scared of the child porn witch hunt climate, has the compulsion to add caveats.

Charity’s anger at proposal to make child porn legal ‘to protect children from abusers’ (Daily Mail)

The proposal, by Professor Milton Diamond from the University of Hawaii [to legalise child pornography in a bid to cut the number of child sex abuse cases], follows a study which shows that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was legalised in the Czech Republic.  [...]  The research found that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was more easily accessible. The discovery tallies with similar studies in Denmark and Japan, where child pornography is not illegal, that found incidences of child sex abuse were lower in those countries.

The conclusion of the new study is that ‘artificially-produced’ child pornography should be made available to prevent real children being abused.

The normal press has to instantly counter academic research with the emotionally driven, manipulative unscientific drivel by charities and NGO’s.

But child protection charity NSPCC today said the idea was ‘wrong’.

Chris Cloke, the charity’s NSPCC head of child protection awareness, said: ‘This obscene type of material has no part to play in our society.

‘Many children suffer atrocious abuse in the making of indecent images.

‘To make it legal, would suggest that inappropriate behaviour and violence towards children is acceptable. It never is and it would be quite wrong to make it legal.’
Charity’s anger at proposal to make child porn legal ‘to protect children from abusers’ (Daily Mail)

Change.org sucks & censors had to instantly campaign emotions against science and actually won censorship (as was to be expected in the actual political child porn witch hunt climate):

Update: The University of Hawaii denounced this recommendation after receiving letters from 250 Change.org members. University of Hawaii Professor Recommends Legalizing Child Porn (Change.org)

Due to loud protest by change.org “human trafficing” campaigns, academic scientific research was censored with no need for scientific rebuttal by academic peer reviewed research.

University of Hawaii Denounces Legalizing Child Pornography

After receiving 250 letters from Change.org members, the University of Hawaii has denounced the legalization of child pornography. Members began voicing their concerns after a retired University of Hawaii professor released a study that seemed to advocate for legalizing child pornography in order to reduce child abuse. Now, however, university officials have stated they don’t support that policy recommendation.

Dr. Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor who retired in 2009, used his university credentials when he published his recent study Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic. In it, he studies the legalization of adult pornography in the Czech Republic and concludes that when adult pornography was legalized, sex crimes against adults did not increase. It also claims that when child pornography was made legal, sex crimes against children decreased.

Of course, science can be countered with science to the contrary. Maybe what Dr Milton Diamond found has scientific flaws.  Let academic research prove him wrong. But scientific research should not be invalidated by petition of lay people.  Of course, nowadays, only persecution-supporting scientific studies are published, because talking in favor of liberalizing child pornography or teenage sex is academic suicide. Dr. Milton Diamond has tenure, is old and retired, it still is amazing he got his study published.

Human-Stupidity.com suggests to create a anti-change.org site that counters change.org’s repressive petitions with petitions to the contrary, presenting scientific evidence about manipulated data etc (PS: we are referring mainly to the human trafficing and other feminist data falsifying parts of change.org)

Abstract and excerpts of the original Research Paper

Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (HTML)

Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (PDF)

Abstract Pornography continues to be a contentious matter
with those on the one side arguing it detrimental to society
while others argue it is pleasurable to many and a feature of
free speech. The advent of the Internet with the ready availability
of sexually explicit materials thereon particularly has
seemed to raise questions of its influence. Following the
effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed
pornographytoasocietypreviouslyhavingforbiddenitallowed
us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the
change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon
has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not
increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark
and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession
of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other
countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of
child sex abuse.

Findings ouside the Czech republic

Kendall (in press) conducted an in-depth analysis of possible
relationships between society, pornography, rape and
the Internet for the state of California. Kendall found that the
arrival of the Internet, while not seeming to have an effect on
other crimes, was associated with a reduction in rape incidence.
After checking the results for the effects of the extent of
porn use, user marital status, size of city in which potential
rapists might live, possible economic status, and other social
and demographic features, Kendall concluded that ‘‘potential
rapists perceive pornography as a substitute for rape…pornography
is a complement formasturbation or consensual sex,
which themselves are substitutes for rape, making pornography
a net substitute for rape.’’This conclusion reflects on the
earlier findings of Goldstein et al. (1971). These investigators,
having extensively interviewed and surveyed rapists, pedophiles,
and others alongwith control groups of personswith no
history of sex offenses about their use of pornography, found
that sex-offender and sex deviate groups not only have had less
experience with pornography but when they do come across it
‘‘…report a higher incidence of masturbation in response to
eroticmaterials than the controls.’’They go on to conclude that
‘‘the erotic materials are much more significant in producing
masturbatory reaction in the users compared with the controls
than in inducing sexual relations.’’

It is also noteworthy that the number of paraphilias (e.g.,
indecent exposure) decreased significantly following the
ready availability of SEM. Usually such activities are considered
relatively refractive to change. Here again, we believe
potential infractions in this regard were prevented by the
simple expedient of masturbation. We believe our findings
support the displacement function of pornography for potential
sex offenders.
Issues surrounding child pornography and child sex abuse
are probably among the most contentious in the area of sex
issues and crime. In this regardwe consider instructive our findings
for the Czech Republic that have echoed those found in
Denmark (Kutchinsky, 1973) and Japan (Diamond&Uchiyama,
1999) that where so-called child-pornography was readily
available without restriction the incidence of child sexual
abusewas lower thanwhenits availabilitywasrestricted.Aswith
adult pornography appearing to substitute for sexual aggression
everywhere it has been investigated, we believe the availability
of child porn does similarly. We believe this particularly
since the findings of Weiss (2002) have shown that a substantial
portion of child sex abuse instances seemed to occur, not because
of pedophilic interest of the abuser, but because the child was
used as a substitute subject.

Summary of feminist utterings about pornography

Among the most prominent expressions against pornography
are in the works of Dworkin (1981) and MacKinnon and
Dworkin (1988). These women are so convinced of the negative
effects of such materials they believe they ought to be
restricted in availability and made illegal. On the other hand,
there are many women in favor of sexually explicit materials
(SEM) or at least against its censorship (McElroy, 1997; Newitz,
2002; Strossen, 1995; Tiefer, 1995). The anti-censorship
and pro pornography side of the argument holds that pornography
is an expression of fantasies that provide pleasure
(Christensen, 1990), are media that can inhibit sexual activity
(Wolf, 2003), and materials that can even act as a positive
displacement activity for sexual aggression (D’Amato, 2006;
Goldstein, Kant, Judd, Rice, & Green, 1971).

Adult Pornography reduces sex crimes

Individuals in real life could use the material alone in private or with partners. In real life, individuals can elect to experience some pornography for minutes or hours, at a single session, or over years. In real life, individuals are free to satisfy different sexual urges in ways unavailable to students in classroom or subjects in laboratory situations.

Kutchinsky (1983, 1987, 1992,1994), has discussed the relative merits of lab studies compared to events outside the laboratory. Basically Kutchinsky believes that pornography, in the real world, offers a substitution for the sexual and nonsexual frustrations that might, in other circumstances, lead to sexual offenses (Kutchinsky, 1973a). He wrote:

If availability of pornography can reduce sex crimes, it is because the use of certain forms of pornography to certain potential offenders is functionally equivalent to the commission of certain types of sex offences: both satisfy the need for psychosexual stimulants leading to sexual enjoyment and orgasm through masturbation. If these potential offenders have the option, they prefer to use pornography because it is more convenient, unharmful and undangerous. (Kutchinsky, 1994, pp. 21).

This too we believe is only a partial answer. There is also the liklihood that repeated exposure to SEM can lead to a response of habituation, boredom or fatigue.

Source: “The Effects of Pornography: an international perspective,” by Milton Diamond, Ph.D, Portions of this paper have been published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (Diamond and Uchiyama, 1999-22(1):1-22.)

More literature

Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan. Author: Milton Diamond, Ph.D. and Ayako Uchiyama Published: International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(1): 1-22. 1999

• University of Hawaii Professor Recommends Legalizing Child Porn (humantrafficking.change.org)

Amazon’s Next Child Sex-Abuse Firestorm Involves Photos [By The Book] (jezebel.com)

A few decades ago, sexually curious children would get a little slap on the wrist or an admonition. Nowadays they get police arrest or at least a school suspension.

Obviously children need to be taught. and warned about these dangers. Not so much the dangers of sexuality. Children need to understand the dangers of man-made crazy laws.

But, how do you teach a 5 year old, or even a 12 year old that adults made insane laws that will cruelly punish him for taking nude photos of herself, playing doctor or “harassing” a kindergarden mate through hugging? Sexuality for children is even more complex then for adults

Get a lawyer before sex: 27 precautions before risking sex with a woman

You really need legal counsel if you are a minor, 16y, 13y, or 5 years old

There is no way a child or adolescent can live without a lawyer. The law mercilessly “protects” minors against exploitation, even by themselves.

If you are a minor, merely taking a photo of yourself naked is a legal nightmare (production of “child pornography”)

• Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos

By this logic, if a child looks into the bath room mirror and sees her naked body, she is looking at child pornography!?

Every 5 year-old is stepping in a legal mine field if s/he wants to play doctor.

Criminalizing Child’s Play
by Marshall Burns, Ph.D. [...]

What used to be called “playing doctor” for young children or thought of as normal sexual experimentation for older teens is now enough to get a kid arrested, taken away in handcuffs, put in juvenile jail, subjected to draconian psychological “treatment,” and put on a sex offender registry, often for the rest of his or her life! This is not just for aggressive or violent behavior, but for innocent, consensual play among giggling kids.

This report presents statistics on juvenile sex offenders, as well as details and references on 66 cases of the formal admonishment of children as young as four for behavior interpreted as sexual and criminal prosecution of children and teenagers for consensual sexual activity. This is a small sample of tens of thousands more cases like them across the United States and in some other countries.

solresearch.org/~SOLR/rprt/JSOs.htm#Ref_1

• Play Doctor, Go To Jail?

Now every 7 year old, as soon as she is able to take a photo with a cell phone, needs to be accompanied by a lawyer, in order to know these important facts of life. Of course, these regulations need to be part of every school curriculum, from kindergarden to high school.

12, 14, 16 year olds, when engaging in sex, or just sex foreplay, are subject to varying laws, depending on country and state they are in.  One of the most absurd cases is here

• Girl 13, charged as sex offender and victim at the same time

Do kids who are just “messing around” have to worry about these laws?

solresearch.org/~SOLR/QnA.asp?group=30#Ref_PlayDoctor

Yes, they do.

11-year-old registered “sex offender”

What used to be called “playing doctor” for young children or thought of as normal sexual experimentation for older teens is now enough to get a kid arrested, taken away in handcuffs, put in juvenile jail (or sometimes even adult prison), subjected to draconian psychological “treatment,” and put on a sex offender registry, often for the rest of his or her life! This is not just for aggressive or violent behavior, but also for innocent, consensual play among giggling kids. See the SOLR report, Criminalizing Child’s Play , for data on the formal admonishment of children as young as four, and criminal prosecution of first graders, for innocent sexual behavior.

10 year old girl registered as sex offender for 25 years. Her crime:
1) Fully clothed pretend-sex & 2) nude flashing

Another example of the disruption due to registration was described in Moore’s USA Today article (2006). Leah DuBuc, age twenty-two, and a resident of Michigan, was adjudicated
at the age of ten for sexual experimentation. DuBuc and her two stepbrothers age eight and five were caught flashing each other and pretending to have sex with their clothes on. Two years later DuBuc plead guilty to first and second degree sexual conduct and was sentenced to eighteen months in a residential treatment program and was required to register as sex offender for twenty-five years. DuBuc’s youthful mistake has made it difficult for her to find or keep a reasonable job; she suffers from community harassment, and has been refused financial aid, thus limiting her education level. DuBuc petitioned to be added to the non-public registry instead of the public registry but was denied because she was more than five years older than one victim at the time of the offense. DuBuc claimed the court had poor mathematical skills because her stepbrother was five and she was ten at the time of the offense cjcj.org/files/attitudes_towards.pdf

66 Cases of Persecuted Juvenile Sexual Activity
Brief descriptions of 66 cases of children and teenagers, from four to 19 years of age, who were either formally admonished by their schools or criminally prosecuted as a result of innocent or consensual sexual acts. Each case is documented by at least one reference to reputable news reports and/or court documents.

Read 66 cases of Persecuted Juvenile Sexual Activity

Today’s legally acceptable behavior can become a crime on kid’s birthday

Sex with 12 year old boy became a crime on her 17th birth day

1) A judge has sent a 17-year-old girl to a restorative justice conference before deciding if she should be punished for having sex with a 12-year-old boy.

In Napier District Court, Judge Tony Adeane observed the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, instigated by the boy, happened on the girl’s 17th birthday, and had it been a day earlier she would not have been in the court.
nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10684597

In Brazil sex with 16 year old girlfriend became crime on his 18h birthday

2) In Brazil, where adolescents are so protected, that they (almost) get away with murder, a man was arrested on his 18th birthday. He was doing the same thing with his 16 year old girlfriend that he had done, legally, for years, while he was 17y or less.  But now, on his 18th birthday, he became criminally liable for seducing a minor.

Avid readers of child sex abuse books clamor for punitive laws

We were blissfully unaware of the fact that there are many many books dedicated to child sexual abuse. Emotional women devour such child abuse literature and get in a frenzy, demanding stricter laws.  Just looking at the titles and descriptions made us sick (child abuse true stories).  People who are enamored with such child abuse literature demand action

Adolescent sexual rights to be attracted to older guys

If you are a teenage girl that likes older guys (which is almost all teenage girls), you might excape jail, but your lover will not. There are babies that grow up fatherless (and penniless), because our justice system rips apart a functioning young family unit.  21 year old father is in jail, against the express wishes and protest of 16 year old mother. She is too immature to understand that all this is for her own protection. I am sure you understand how this protects her against exploitation.

I predict that at some remote time, in a few decades, there will be a movement for the civil rights and sexual rights of minors. In the famous case of Mary Kay Letouneu, her underage “victim” (as soon as he reached majority) successfully petitioned to remove the restraining order that kept her away from him, and subsequently married his “rapist” and mother of his children.

Age discrimination

Why can a 15 year old have sex with a 15 year old, but a 35 year old can not? This constitutes clear age discrimination. Of course, in an age where all constitutional guarantees of due process are anulled in alleged rape cases, such a minor illegality will not be remedied easily.

Gender discrimination

Boys’ punishments incomparably harsher then girls’. In this example, a girl and a girl were arrested by the same police for the same crime and treated very differently:  A 17 year old and a 14 year old having sex. Where the 14 year old had lied that her age was 16.

The 16 year old did not have legal counsel about local laws. He failed to diligently do ID check, background check.  He should have read this article here, and also Get a lawyer before sex: 27 precautions before risking sex with a woman.

Due to laws that protect children, the 17 year old children (never forget that nowadays 17 year olds are children) were arrested and charged.

After a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town commited the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias? [...]

In the words of his attorney, Jeffrey Purnell, “This child, this 17-year-old high-school kid, had to spend a week in jail—they locked him up and they put him in jail with grown-ups.”

His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. And, perhaps, being a boy.

“These are kids,” said Purnell. “It’s ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it’s frustrating, really.”

The day after Alan’s arrest, Sheboygan authorities arrested Norma Guthrie, also 17, for having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend. Norma, however, did not have to spend a single day in jail. She was released immediately, on signature bond, while Alan was held on a $1,000 cash bond, which his family could not afford. Sheboygan County Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch is handling both cases.

The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.

thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-19/the-teen-rape-double-standard/3/

15 year old (statutory) rape victim boy must pay child support for 20 years

Feminists laws really are complete, in protection of female privilege. A 15 year old boy can not agree to sex, but his life is ruined by child support demands, enforced by jail term threats. Because the adult “rapist” woman did not care about birth control nor decide to abort, the kids life is ruined and his financial and educational future is bleak.

Even if mother cheated, lied, or raped: father always pays child support.

A 15 year old kid never could legally commit to a 20 year lease, or a 20 year installment plan on a house. Why can he agree to be responsible for 20 years of payment for child support?

It is highly doubtful that sex is traumatic or damaging for adolescents (see Rind study).  But would anyone doubt that a 15 year old would suffer great trauma for:

• being condemned to spend major part of his income for 20 years, more then his own age, on child support
• to be deprived of school money, to be obliged to work and unable to go to college, due to child support obligations
• to be obliged to work and to pay child support under the threat of prison terms like in mideval Debtor’s Prison
• Note that a girl can escape the effects of imprudent unprotected sex by opting for abortion, while a man (or underage boy) has no such option to escape his fate as a long term debtor. Note also that it is very common that men are prevented from seeing their children and have no right to decide how their child support money is spent

Jail the majority of the population

Of course, if you check statistics about teenage sexual activities, you might as well arrest half of entire age groups.  Only some rare cases make it to court.  A large percentage of adolescents have sex, and unfortunately even offspring before the age of consent.  Only the unlucky few “perpetrators” get jailed.

One survey found 20 percent of teenagers and 33 percent of young adults aged 20 to 26 said they had sent or posted nude or semi-nude photos of themselves.
Read more: newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/09/04/bozell-column-teens-and-sextortion#ixzz144wrswDU

So 20% of teenagers are felons for producing and distributing child porn. But many more must be receiving and possessing the files. So probably 50% of teenagers are felons for involvement with child pornography. Add to this sexually active teens who are not covered by Romeo and Juliet laws, and a huge majority of adolescents are at risk for several year long felony jail terms.

Psychological counselling before underage sex, instead of legal harrassment

If the law maker really were concerned with the well being of adolescents, then s/he could demand a mandatory psychological counselling session and a 3 day cool off period before any sex involving a minor.  After that, if both parties still want to pursue the relationship, it should be legal.

More underage sex stories

Sex-harass suspension of 1st grader stirs debate

Experts say kids his age don’t understand; mother is outraged

The first-grader was suspended for three days for sexual harassment after he put two fingers inside a classmate’s waistband, school officials told his mother, Berthena Dorinvil. The boy told her he only touched the girl’s shirt after the girl touched him. [...]

The boy’s mother called the Jan. 30 suspension from Downey Elementary School outrageous. She said she can’t even explain to her son what he did wrong because he’s too young to understand.

“He doesn’t know those things,” she told The Enterprise of Brockton. “He’s only 6 years old.” [...]

There have been similar cases. In 1996, a New York second-grader was suspended for kissing a girl and ripping a button off her skirt — an idea the boy said he got from his favorite book “Corduroy,” about a bear with a missing button. Earlier that year, a Lexington, N.C., 6-year-old was separated from his class after kissing a classmate on the cheek.  msnbc.msn.com/id/11252421/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2010/10/15/girls-routinely-sexually-harassed-115875-22635045

6 year old on disciplinary referral for lewd comments about “hottie” teacher

A pastor says that his 6-year-old son was given a disciplinary referral for making suggestive comments about a teacher, and now he is afraid the boy is being made out to be a “sexual pervert.” [...]

The Pinkneys said that Malory was given a referral because a teacher filed a complaint about remarks she said that Malory had made about her to another kindergarten teacher.

The parents said the prinicpal told them that the offensive remarks included saying the teacher was “a hottie,” asking if teachers “sleep together,” and saying that a classmate of his liked looking at the teacher’s “butt.”  wyff4.com/r/15783745/detail.html

Teen girl charged with posting nude photos on Internet

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said.

The girl, whose identity was withheld, was accused of sending out photographs of herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts [...]

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

So this girl sexually abused herself, or maybe others of her age?  Conclusions:

adolescents need legal counsel, at all times, on how to deal with ridiculous adult sex laws.

• Boy, 16, likely to face charges for having sex with girl, 12, in schoolyard

“This was not a mob attack on a child walking through the park. This was a group of youths that knew each other, that had been consuming alcohol and a sexual act took place. That’s what we’re treating it as,” said Calgary police Staff Sgt. Leah Barber, from the child abuse unit.

Because a 12-year-old cannot legally consent to having sex with a 16-year-old, the act is being treated as a sexual assault. Since the victim had not been interviewed yet, no charges have been laid.

Some common sense prevails. The boy (and the girl) both deserve some serious slaps on the wrist. For drinking!  But, of course, the law is the law. So one  more child (after all 17 year olds nowadays are children, even if they are allowed to drive and to vote) traumatized by the crazy adult legal system.  That is the problem. And, yes, they drank alcolhol. That, of course, is a problem. Maybe the parents of both the 16 year old and the 12 year old should have tought them better and watch them more carefully. And I think the important issue is: did they use birth control or only engage in practices that prevented pregnancy!?

12. How young are kids getting into trouble for innocently “messing around”?

A four-year-old has been charged with sexual harassment for hugging his teacher, and two first graders have been prosecuted for sodomy as a result of innocent, mutual play with each other.

Here are some example cases of young children being formally admonished or legally prosecuted for innocent and playful sexual activity:

• 4-year-old suspended after hugging teacher’s aide, Associated Press, December 11, 2006

  School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher’s aide after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.

  A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student’s parents said that the boy was involved in “inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment” after he hugged the woman and he “rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female employee” on Nov. 10.

  DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his son doesn’t understand why he was punished.

• Girl, 5, Forced To Apologize For Hugging Classmate — Parents Looking For New School For Girl — WCVB-TV (Boston, Massachusetts), April 5, 2006
• Boy, 5, Accused Of Sex Harassment For Pinching Girl’s Butt — Boy’s Father Says He Can’t Explain Term — NBC4.com (Maryland), December 20, 2006
• Kindergartners Accused of Having Sex at School, KGBT-TV (Harlingen, Texas), April 19, 2005
• 6-Year-Old Boys Caught Having Sex At Day Camp, WESH-TV (Orlando, Florida), July 11, 2006
• 6-Year-Old Accused Of Sexual Harassment — Boy Accused Of Putting Fingers In Girl’s Waistband — KMGH-TV (Denver, Colorado), February 8, 2006

Elementary school officials called the boy’s mother, Berthena Dorinvil, on Jan. 30, and asked her to pick up her child from the school. Dorinvil said that officials told her that her son was being suspended for sexually harassing a 6-year-old female classmate.

• Boy, 6, accused of sex abuse, The Age (newspaper) (Melbourne, Australia), September 19, 2007
• First Graders Face Sodomy Charges, WFIE-TV (Evansville, Indiana), February 2005

Note that while in the case reported by KGBT-TV, authorities were content with giving the boys counseling and school suspension, prosecutors in the case reported by WFIE-TV actually filed first degree sodomy charges against two first graders who were “found in the bathroom performing sexual acts.”

For many more cases like these, see the SOLR report, Criminalizing Child’s Play.

Suffolk, England — June 22, 2006 (act)

“[T]wo six-year-old boys were accused of sexually assaulting two five-year-old girls.” (NOTE: “Assault,” as used here, is a legal term that means some kind of sexual activity with a person under the age of sexual consent. It does not necessarily mean there was any coercion, violence, or penetration, and the information available on this case doesn’t tell us anything about what actually took place.)

Participants: 2 boys, 2 girls, aged 6, 5, school-mates

Source: Boys, six, accused of sexual assault, Eastern Daily Press (Norwich, England), July 8, 2006

No Easy Answers

Sex Offender Laws in the US

September 11, 2007

This 146-page report is the first comprehensive study of US sex offender policies, their public safety impact, and the effect they have on former offenders and their families. During two years of investigation for this report, Human Rights Watch researchers conducted over 200 interviews with victims of sexual violence and their relatives, former offenders, law enforcement and government officials, treatment providers, researchers, and child safety advocates. Source: No Easy Answers

Sex Offender Laws in the US – Download PDF

I was convicted of statutory rape when I was 17. The girl was 15. Now I am in college.I register everywhere and every time I am suppose[d] to. I must register every 90 days.  [...] I am a good person who made a bad decision with a peer 16 months my junior seven weeks after my 17th birthday. [...]

I attempted to explain that I have no criminal history to which they replied, “Well while we do not find any actual record of misconduct, you are on the sex offender registry, so that means that you have to have done something horrible.” [...] I will have to do this for another 23 years. That is how long I have to register.

-Henry F., adjudicated at 17 in Michigan for having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend

[...]One of the plaintiffs is Sean C., who was adjudicated at 17 for having consensual sex with a girlfriend who was three weeks shy of 16, the age of consent in the state.

When he was 15, Jim T. was convicted of molesting his younger sister starting when she was six and he was 10. Jim was accused of touching his sister’s vagina multiple times, and forcing her to touch his penis multiple times. Jim was tried as an adult, convicted, and spent three years in a Maricopa County, Arizona jail, where he was assaulted on a number of occasions. [...] Jim’s mother says that he has been incarcerated three times for violating parole, but for things that have nothing to do with endangering the community-he was late to work, he was at a nursing home visiting his grandfather, and he was on a college campus. VII. Sex Offender Laws and Child Offenders

Boys may want girls to have sex, but no one else does.

Sure, maybe the sixteen-year-old love of your life wants to go “all the way.” But how do you even know if you want to, when your teachers and your parents and politicians and those billboards in the bus stop are telling you that sex is the worst possible thing you could ever do (worse than drugs even)? Whether you want to fuck or not, if you are a girl, you are pretty much guaranteed to be squeezed between the Plymouth Rock of American puritanism and the hard place of adolescent desire.  Why High-School Dating Sucks [Sex Ed] (jezebel.com)

Sex offender registration for non-violent trivialities cause children’s suffering and suicides

At least 29 states require sex offender registration for consensual sex between teenagers (Sex Offender Laws in the US – Download PDF)

Alabama, Ala. Code §13A-6-63, §13A-11-200; Alaska, Alaska Stat. S11.41.434, §12.63.010, 100; Arizona, A.R.S. §13-1405,
3821; Arkansas, Ark. Code Ann §12-12-903, 905, §5-14-110; Colorado, Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-22-103, §18-3-402, 411;
Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-250, § 54-251, § 53a-70; Florida, Fla. Stat. Ann. §775.21, § 794.011; Indiana, Burns Ind. Code
Ann § 11-8-8-7, § 11-8-8-5; Louisiana, La. R.S. 15:542, 15: 541, 14:92(A)(7); Maine, 34-A M.R.S. § 11222, 34-A M.R.S. § 11203, 17-A M.R.S. § 254; Maryland, Md. Criminal Procedure Code Ann. § 11-704, 11-701, 3-308; Massachusetts, ALM GL ch. 6, § 178C,
178D, ALM GL ch. 272, § 35A; Michigan, MCLS § 28.723, 28.722, 750.520e; Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 243.166, Subd.
1b(a)(1)(iii), 609.345 (2006); Missouri, 589.400 R.S.Mo., § 566.032 R.S.Mo.; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §651-B:1,
RSA 651-B:2, RSA 632-A:2; New Jersey, N.J. Stat. Ann. §2c 14-2, § 2C:7-2, 2C:14-3b; North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.7,
14-208.6, 14-27.7A; North Dakota, N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-15, 12.1-20-07; Oklahoma, 57 Okl. St. § 582, 21 Okl. St. § 1123;
Rhode Island, R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-37.1-3, 11-37.1-2; South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430, § 16-3-655; South Dakota, S.D.
Codified Laws § 22-24B-2, 22-24B-1, 22-22-7; Tennessee, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-202, 40-39-203, 39-13-506; Texas, Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.002, 62.001, Tex. Penal Code §21.11; Utah, Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5, § 76-5-401, 76-5-401.2;
Washington, Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.44.130, § 9A.44.096; West Virginia, W.Va. Code § 15-12-2, § 61-8B-9; Wisconsin,
Wis. Stat. §301.45, §948.02 (2006).

At least 13 states require [sex offender] registration for public urination;

Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination—two if
exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code §314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut,
Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-186, §54-250, §54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. §42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of
a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. §18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §510.148, §17.520, 500, §510.150;
Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 §16, ALM GL ch. 6 §178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws §167(1)(f), §28.722,
723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. §582.21, §1021; South
Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. §23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. §77-27-21.5, §76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, §2601,
§5407, 5401.

Teen commits suicide after sex offender registration for nude flashing

At least 32 states require [sex offender] registration for exposing genitals in public [...]

Alabama: Code of Ala. § 13A-11-200, 13A-6-68; Arizona: A.R.S. § 13-3821, § 13-1402; Arkansas: A.C.A. § 12-12-905, § 12-12-
903, § 5-14-112; California: Cal Pen Code § 290, § 314; Colorado: C.R.S. 16-22-103 (2006), 18-3-411 (2006), 18-7-302
(2006);Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-250, 54-251, 53a-186; Idaho: Idaho Code § 18-8304, 18-4116 ;Illinois: 730 ILCS
150/3, 730 ILCS 150/2, 720 ILCS 5/11-9; Iowa: Iowa Code § 692A.2, 692A.1, 709.9 (2006); Kansas: K.S.A. § 22-4904, 22-4902,
21-3508 (2006); Kentucky: KRS §17.510, 17.500, 510.148, 510.150 (2006); Louisiana: La. R.S. 15:542, 15:541, 14:81;
Massachusetts: ALM GL ch. 6, § 178E, 178C, ALM GL ch. 272, § 16; Michigan: MCLS § 28.723, 28.722, 750.335a; Minnesota:
Minn. Stat. § 243.166, 617.23 (2006); Montana: Mont. Code Anno. § 46-23-504, 46-23-502, 45-5-504 (2005); Nevada: Nev. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 179D.450, 179D.400, 179D.410, 201.220; New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 29-11A-4, 29-11A-3, 30-9-14.3; North
Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-15, 12.1-20-12.1; South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430, 16-15-130 (2006); South Dakota:
S.D. Codified Laws § 22-24B-2, 22-24B-1, 22-24-1.2; Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-203, 40-39-202, 39-13-511; Texas:
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.051, 62.001, Tex. Penal Code § 21.08; Vermont: 13 V.S.A. § 5407, 5401, 2601; West Virginia: W.Va.
Code § 15-12-2, 61-8-9.

In 1999 a high school senior in Salina, Oklahoma was arrested for what his mother described to the local media as a “high school thing.”114 He reportedly exposed himself to a group of female freshman gym students on his way to the restroom. [...]

According to his mother, the stigma of the label drove him out of his community and away from his family. He dropped out of high school and moved to Tulsa. He had a hard time finding and maintaining employment. “It seemed like after that happened, he didn’t care,” his mother told a local newspaper.115 The youth was found shot to death in November 2000 in what officials ruled a suicide. He was one month away from his 20th birthday. His mother now believes that some consideration should be given to sex offender registration requirements when the charge stems from a nonviolent act. “He was a pretty normal kid,” she said. The sex offender registration requirements “changed his life. Sex Offender Laws in the US – Download PDF

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 23 percent of all sexual assault offenders were under age 18 at the time of the offense. About 3.7 percent were under the age of 12. Indeed, a “detailed profile of offenders in sexual assault crimes shows that the single age with the greatest number of offenders from the perspective of law enforcement was age 14.[...]

Forty percent of the offenders against very young children (under the age of six) were themselves children; a similar proportion (39 percent) of offenders whose victims were age six to 11 were children.229Many sex offenses committed by children resemble the many types of delinquent activities that the juvenile justice system is designed (in theory, if not always in practice) to enable teenagers to outgrow.230 Most child sex offenders do not engage in aggressive or violent behavior. In a study of children arrested for committing sexual offenses, 59 percent of the offenses were categorized as indecent liberties (touching or fondling) and 27 percent as rape. The rest were arrested for what were described as non-contact offenses (public exposure). Sex Offender Laws in the US – Download PDF

Note that the 27% rape might not be rape in the classic sense, but “statutory rape”, consensual sex among minors.

As one individual who was convicted of statutory rape at age 16 for having consensual sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend told Human Rights Watch, “We were in love. And now we are married. So it’s like I am on the registry for having premarital sex. Does having premarital sex make me a danger to society? My wife doesn’t think so.”255 A mother of a young man from Texas who has to register for having consensual sex at age 19 with his 14-year-old girlfriend noted, “Our family has been devastated by this law that treats a young man in a consensual dating relationship the same as a violent rapist or a predator of young children.”256

Books about child abuse issues: menstuff.org/books/byissue/abuse-child.html

Related articles

• Girls ‘routinely sexually harassed’ (mirror.co.uk)
• Is ‘Sexting’ a Teenage Felony or Folly? (online.wsj.com)