Judge tells teacher sex offender: I don't criticise you for being attracted to children

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Hail Satan! Here comes the devil's advocate!!

reply to post by Maluhia

 

It is normal in a society which has a very high rate of attraction to children. It is acceptable in a society that is less elitist and prudish concerning the nature of human sexuality. Take, for example, age of consent laws.

As SaturnFX and highpriestess say, the law decrees that a "child" becomes an adult when the clock strikes midnight on their 18th birthday. Suddenly, it is normal and acceptable in this society to be sexually attracted to them. Suddenly, they have gained the mental and emotional maturity to consent to sexual activity. How marvelous, that the courts can legislate the human body and mind!

Surely, we all must agree on this point; that it is impossible for something in reality to contradict the Law. The Law is the source and the outlet of our moral outrage; how can be be righteously outraged if reality does not conform itself to our Law? Consider the following:

There was no legal age of consent in ancient Greece and Rome
It was normal and acceptable for people under the age of 18 to engage in sexual activity
Therefore, their bodies were not legislated into strict moral order!

This is foolproof logic and every sensible person must agree!

Now, there is only one objection that remains to be addressed. That is the absurd notion thatpeople under 18 can have sexual feelings. Shame on you, NeoVain, for spreading the totally false lie that teenagers are capable of mature adult relations. Don`t you know that you can only be sexually mature when the court says so? As I have just demonstrated, it is impossible for biology to contradict the judgment of the Law and the outrage of people who have no knowledge of the case at hand or the players in that case.

So we must today conclude this: that as soon as you become 18, you are sexually and emotionally mature and are incapable of making stupid mistakes driven by hormones or passion or emotions! And if you are engaged in sexual activity before you are exactly 18 years old, then you are being exploited because it is impossible for you to be mature without my - ahem - the court's say-so.

P.S. Freud is a fraud, I know this because momma beat me when I played doctor with the neighbour girl

Thats just what a sex offender would say...

Nice way to justify vile lust for kids

If someone tried that with my kids I would kill them

That is not a euphonism

I actually would take their life, they would breathe no more, their likeness would never be seen again.


Infact I do not think I would be able to hold back if someone expressed such views to myself.


Some people make me feel physically sick.

reply to post by Maluhia


To me what the judge said....may be very telling about her.....reading between the lines.....and her viewpoint...I am just wondering....is the judge a pedofile?

I will repeat that part I mentioned before. It is government agencies that are behind many or most "child porn" ads. They will include photos that most people would consider disgusting or revolting in order to make their prosecution more coherent and persuasive.

When someone receives those obscene photos along with others they request that may not actually be illegal they often do not realize that simply deleting them does not remove the images from the computer's memory - those police agencies know they can be restored and do so to use for prosecution. Such persons may actually have been seeking alluring photos that are more akin children and youth beauty pageant and swimsuit photos.

Let the parents argue the virtues of involving their children in such events. Though on the surface it would appear those events can be very legitimate and respectable they would have to know that there would be many that would be lustfully ogling the pageant. Is that reason enough to ban such events? Or reason to ban persons from collecting photos of such events.

Who decides for what reasons children could or could not be admired for their beauty and allure?

I still have to go along with the idea that no crime exists unless it crosses the line into actions.

...i dont agree with policies that criminalize photos / videos / art... those policies do not protect anyone from predators and, judicial history proves, those policies are too easily abused and are rapidly heading us towards the time when our thoughts can be criminalized...

...as with snuff films (which i think are despicable), it shouldnt be a crime to possess one or a million... the crime is committed by those who actually kill someone in the process of making the snuff film... the same applies to photos / films considered pedophilic...

Originally posted by NeoVain
Don´t judge before you have been in the same positon yourself.

...per your standard - only murderers should judge those accused of murder - only thieves should judge those accused of stealing - and - only sexual predators should judge those accused of the same...

...the current legal system isnt ideal but your standard validates the old adage "it can always get worse"...

reply to post by CrankyPantsUK


The age of consent in Washington DC is 16. Do you find someone who has sex with a 16 year old legally in DC as vile and disgusting?

reply to post by Maluhia


It's not normal.. but it's also a mental illness in my opinion.
Which may have been what this judge meant.

The Judge is right. Why whould we criticize a person that probably did not choose to be born with such a distrubing mind. Who are we to criticize a person whose mind was negatively influenced through his/her social upbringing and life experiences which were out of his/her control.

We can judge actions. But it's not right to judge a person by how they think. Everyone is different. We should accept everybody until that somebody does harm unto others.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I actually think he is mentaly ill even with having only picture,not 4500 of them. Judge that said (if she did) what she said should be shot dead.I am against violence but pedophiles i would do gladly.

This is totally outrageous.

The judge says, "I can't blame you for being sexually attracted to children..."

WELL I CAN!

As far as I'm concerned, pedophiles need to be shipped off to a desert island where they can never harm a child again; and this "judge" needs to be thrown off the bench!

Stories like this just make my blood boil.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


"indecent" in uk law means naked. flashing is called "indecent exposure" and i could go out in half a meter of duct tape and not be guilty of "indecent exposure"

she should not be a judge she is disgusting

Originally posted by OldCorp
The judge says, "I can't blame you for being sexually attracted to children..."

WELL I CAN!

OK, now explain how that works, please.

Not that I am defending the guy, but you have whole cultures that sorta subscribe to this. Now, his porno is prolly messed up underage kids, I'm not talking about that. You got places like Japan where its a bit expected for older men to be attracted to highschool girls......And really, do you think teachers in highschools across America don't look at the female students?
Again, I am against child pornography, and this guy is most likely a creepy boob...but you're naive if you think highschool teachers don't look at and/or get aroused by they're female students....

Originally posted by Josonic
First let me admit that I have not read the article, just the summary and the OP. But from what I gather I'm guessing the judge simply met that being attracted to children is a disease and therefore uncontrollable, therefore not to be criticized, what you do with that attraction is how you should be criticized.

I really have a feeling I'm gonna get bashed for this post.

EDIT: After reading the article I determined that he did not walk free, rather his sentence was shortened to 12 months after spending 10 years with his name on the sexual offender list and not being able to own any internet capable devices (every device made in the last 5 years)

edit on 7/30/2011 by Josonic because: (no reason given)

I think getting a job as a Teacher in the case should have been clearly criticized!

Originally posted by JustinSee
Not that I am defending the guy, but you have whole cultures that sorta subscribe to this. Now, his porno is prolly messed up underage kids, I'm not talking about that. You got places like Japan where its a bit expected for older men to be attracted to highschool girls......And really, do you think teachers in highschools across America don't look at the female students?
Again, I am against child pornography, and this guy is most likely a creepy boob...but you're naive if you think highschool teachers don't look at and/or get aroused by they're female students....

We are talking babies age 2 even!!

Originally posted by Jepic
The Judge is right. Why whould we criticize a person that probably did not choose to be born with such a distrubing mind. Who are we to criticize a person whose mind was negatively influenced through his/her social upbringing and life experiences which were out of his/her control.

We can judge actions. But it's not right to judge a person by how they think. Everyone is different. We should accept everybody until that somebody does harm unto others.

The Judge said "“I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children. " Clearly if you know you are attracted to children you KNOW you need to not get a job involving children!!

reply to post by Char-Lee


Yeah, I was talking about highschool students. I was trying to say child pornography and 'young" attraction is wrong, but men will look at girls if they have...and pardon me for this creepiness....boobs.

reply to post by Maluhia

Sexual attraction to children isn't normal. It never has been and it never will be outside of a society based in Anarchy or hardcore liberal rule with generations of total control to work up to it, IMO.

I think this makes a statement about the Judge herself. How many children has she been turned onto and has she kept her "normal desires" under control? I don't want to give anyone heartburn over free speech issues, but there is SOME speech so direct and obvious in implicating yourself in the probable activity being discussed that it's criminal NOT to pursue the issue and at least check things out....As a Judge? Her speech should be criminal and at LEAST, he position as a judge should be terminated, immediately.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Stick to the facts there was no mention of kiddie porn pics just 4,500 indecent images of children.

Indecent could mean a lot of things.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by OldCorp
The judge says, "I can't blame you for being sexually attracted to children..."

WELL I CAN!

OK, now explain how that works, please.

How can I blame him for being attracted to children and having child porn on his computer? Are you being serious right now?