Category: Let's talk
Guys, I know this one is going to set off a firestorm. So let's see...please, try and keep it to mature, analytical discussions and don't go off on moral crusades.
http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/
Oh boy, I saw a post or two on Twitter and that contained more rage than I have seen in a while. Child mollesting isn't something that will ever be taken lightly. This goes beyond morals combined with common sense and decency. I will never understand why or how, but that is a turn on to some. It doesn't matter the counselling and help the person may go for, because they are attracted to children. I have heard, from another article that unfortunately I do not have the name of, that one of the reasons why is because the person wants to have control of a child as it is vulnerable, smaller, and unable to stick up for him/herself. They are still people, but their fantisies and actions, if carried out, are absolutely inhumane and always will be. Everyone deserves rites until these rites are either taken advantage of or thrown under the bus.
I cannot agree with Ryan more, about the pedophiles compromising the rights of unconsenting minors.
However, rational debate you asked for and rational debate we shall perhaps have:
So, first, before we get to asking who is Pat Dollard, the one bringing this article, it's not shocking nor is it comparative to find out that pedophiles want the same rights as actual sexual minorities.
Any serial killer who has blamed his actions on pornography, found Jesus and asked us all for clemency from his just punishment is asking for rights to. The outrage is not who asks, but if they actually got. Nazis ask for rights, and so do any number of other fringe groups who enact harm on other people.
But if you read this article, it's really about gay people and not pedophiles. It's design is clearly to get you upset about gays and thereby against the so-called "homosexual lifestyle." Here for the lazy or indifferent is ?the top ten search results from Google for Pat Dollard, a spokesperson against Gay Rights and a featured guest on Fox News.
This is not scholarly, again this has nothing to do with pedophilia at all.
Real victims of pedophiles (child abuse survivors they call it in polite society), are left to suffer a horrible fate after the event, possibly irreparable. Just as they don't know if they can cure the pedophiles, they really don't know if they can make the 3 o'clock A.M. nightmares of the survivors ever go away either.
Pedophilia or more commonly called sex crime has a lot of stages: the criminal sets the stage (grooming I have heard it called as an adult), they enact their crime, the victim suffered during setup and crime itself being blamed for the event. After the event, there is a maintinence phase which must be carried out by the perpetrator to ensure the victim doesn't talk. This is most frequently by shame and guilt, the favored use methodologies of the anti-gay folks too, as an aside. The terrible truth about sex crime and its unimaginable outcomes is that the crime continues in order to maintain the cover. Ths isn't like stealing your shoes, punching you in the face in a bar, or anything else you can live with and bounce back from. The perp's only hope of not getting caught is to sufficiently modify the psyche of the victim so she or he cannot and will not ever release information. Again, I wonder personally if perhaps irreparable. This is simply not comparable to the life of a couple of consenting adults with a given sexual orientation.
Do a bit of study on opinion of interracial relationships and the phenomenon of the perpetual black rapist in the early 20th centrury. The darker side of this fellow and his kind is they copy from the early 20th-century Eugenics playbook, which was removed from popular culture during World War II. Eugenicists, like anti-gay groups today, are doing absolutely nothing for real victims of sex crimes, labor crimes or any other crimes.
And here I leave rationalism and venture into my own opinion:
The fact that this fool compares the horrible and unspeakable fate of a sex abuse survivor to what two consenting adults do together is unconscionable. In a moment of savagery I could have him hung by piano wire with that hooked to a generator at 220 volts at a pesky .5 amps. That'd do the trick.
It's just sick to connect real terrors, real lifelong tragedies, to the actions of two consenting adults.
Of course all criminals ask for rights, that is nothing new. Charles Manson would have you believe he should be President if you listened to him long enough. What does that matter? Again, there is absolutely no real proof in that blog post that we are anywhere near granting pedophiles these types of rights to act out their aggression.
And let's not forget, a large part of child sex crime is not just the sex: it's the "setup" and "tear-down" (in many more ways than one) that fulfill the entire crime and devastate that unfortunate human being who is forever altered afterwards. How dare such a pig compare these two? Is this some sort of sick joke? Any of us that have walked afoul of one of those knows very well the total difference between the two, and only the self-righteous are going to wring their hands together and say oh my my my that's terrible, with absolutely no perspective on this at all. What an insult to survivors!
I bet somebody was expecting disgust at pedophilia, which is obvious, common, and throughout human societies all over the world. I'm equally disgusted at victims of pedophiles being sidelined and sold as objects of somebody's political eww factor towards gays. I hate to coin a modern almost popular phrase, but I nearly threw up in my mouth at reading this yesterday off Twitter and the incredible gall this person has, and incredible lack of character to trademark victims of real sex abuse / slavery in a war against a sexual minority, the gays, for which this boy (I dare not call that a man) has a political eww factor against.
I hope someone takes him. For what he is.
This is also accepted or not depending on the society and times. This will have several sides just like homosexuality, and other things.
I personally think it is mental again, but that was my argument on another board.
If you accept the fact people are born homosexual, why not this too?
Heavy question.
Oh, and like Leo, I don't agree with this, because it is not consenting adults, so feel it is a crime, but, if you strip it down to basics my post above stands as what I think.
Except gays are not confronting each other, creating a trusting situation only to violate it, then blaming each other for the event and committing aggregious acts of mental violence to control their partner and keep him or her from divulging anything that went on.
There is just something so vastly different and disturbing about these relationships I forever could not see the connection.
In one case you have two equals of adult age having a sexual relationship and in another you have someone whose design is clearly to modify the thought processes of another to form a scenario from which their sexual exploits would never be discovered.
I personally believe pedophiles hate children the same way that rapists hate women. Because of the hellish mental modification they put them through, this can only be seen in my mind as hate. Even if, like the Inquisitors of old, they enact loving deeds towards them at times to re-gain trust and acceptance from the victim, and to "feed" it well enough to keep it alive. Build up, tear down. Build up, tear down. That's their game.
This is so vastly different from gays or straights or transsexuals or anybody else. I say what I said in my previous post: He should die for that horrible comparison. If there is a hell, some of us have actually already been there and back. And gays had nothing to do with it.
Not all child predators are male just as not all gays are child predators.
I've actually read stories where they say the love and want to protect the children they are loving. Many do great things for children related things, so justify it that way.
Maybe they just do the things for children that are widely considered great so they can get access to children.
It doesn't matter whether paedophilia is an illness or an orientation. It is wrong and should not be accepted. Those who advocate accepting paedophiles should be investigated.
senior's post said exactly what I was going to.
As others have said, while pedophiles may be born pedophiles and homosexuals are born homosexual, comparing the two is absolutely disgusting, and an insult to those who are homosexual. As Leo explained, consent (and, in many instances, real lasting love) should never be compared to the abuse of a child. Get them the help they need, by all means, but don't start putting pedophiles in the same camp as homosexuals
Agreed with Meglet on this.
A homosexual person who acts according to his orientation will ultimately do little to no harm, assuming he doesn't piss off the wrong person. That comes with the territory, I suppose.
A pedophile who acts according to his orientation is, as has very clearly been stated, doing a lot of awful things to an innocent victim. This should not in any way be compared or sanctioned.
I would like to state, however, that if one is truly wired to find children attractive, that alone is not criminal. One can no more help one's orientation than they can help their skin colour. However, if a person has a tendency that will get them into trouble, they have no excuse when they do the wrong thing. None at all.
Let me be clear. I'm not supporting pedophilia in any fashion. I think it's horrible when it happens. At worst, I am only saying that you may not be able to help what you like, but you can always help what you do...at least in matters like this.
Actually homosexuals do lots of harm. You understand what I'm driving at.
SF, you see it my way. You might not can help what you are, but you can help what you do. This is mental control.
I agree with Shepherdwolf; I meant to convey this in my post and failed to. I understand that some may be born with a desire that, while it may even disgust them, they cannot just get rid of, whether through treatment or force of will. But carrying it out is an entirely different thing.
Have any of you heard of NAMBLA, standing for the North American Man-Boy Love Association? Its members basically advocate that young males, even those below the teenage years, can consent to sex. It's what makes a lot of us in the gay community go ballistic because they often want to march in the gay pride parades. It drives us who are seeking adult gay relationships absolutely crazy because we get enough trouble from bigoted straights as it is who consider us child molesters among other things. So, I definitely agree that when you're talking about pedophilia, they definitely don't deserve the same rights as gays because we're talking about preying on children who have no mental capacity to consent.
That said, I've been troubled by one question, and that is this: We have, it seems to me, arbitrarily decided that age eighteen is the age of adulthood in this country, if not throughout much of the world. I can see this on the one hand, but I've frankly known many people who have been young adults, both gay and straight, who have had relationships with teenagers. To wit, way back in the day, my guitar teacher, who at the time was in his late 50s, told me his first relationship as a fourteen-year-old boy was with a 21-year-old female. Another gay friend of mine had a very open relationship as a fifteen-year-old with someone in his late 20s. Another gay friend of mine admitted that he learned more about sex when he was 28 from a 14-year-old boy than he'd ever known before. So, I guess what I"m asking here is whether, and to what extent, should we modify the age of consent. For in these three instances, I don't see any coercion. In all three of these instances, however, the people I knew, or the people I knew about, were below the age of consent. (In New York, I think it's 17.) But in none of these instances was there any apparent harm. To my knowledge, nobody was threatened, and this did not appear to be an instance of anything close to resembling actual rape. Statutory rape it might well have been, however, and I acknowledge this. But I have to confess that if I were fourteen or fifteen and had someone older take an interest in me, I might've gone for it. Again, I'm only broaching this as a matter of promoting an honest discussion as to whether, and to what extent, the age of consent should be lowered. Can you safely lower it to sixteen, or fourteen? And to what extent is there still a danger of taking advantage of and/or coercing someone vulnerable? Frankly, I don't know what the answer is. Any thoughts? (Please, let's try to keep the flame wars down to a minimum; just as I said, broaching a topic.)
I completely agree with post 11, shepherd wolf's post. If we considered people criminals based on their thoughts, well I guess everyone would be classified as a criminal, because at one point or another we've all had some pretty screwed up ones ourselves. Taking action and acting out against a helpless child is another thing. I've even heard of rapists on the news say how the child agreed and gave them permission, or they figured it was ok because the child didn't protest or say anything. Absolutely revolting.
To answer the question above, to be honest it doesn't surprise me all that much that things like what you mentioned happen. Just because it's against the law it doesn't mean shit. People will still satisfy their desires. The problem I have with those situations is not every person goes through puberty at the same time. I don't know what exactly, but I would imagine there would be some long-term problems as a result of a person involved with sex before their body is ready. Now, I don't agree with every one of society's ideas, but I stand firmly with the way consent is determined. As of now this is a state by state law. Some states the law is no one younger than 16, others 17, and I have not heard of any state that allows children under 16 to have sexual relationships with adults, nor would I be pleased to hear that there is one. If I were to have a child I would be appaled to find out that an adult took it upon themselves to have sex with my son, probably even more so if I had a daughter. I'm sure many guys have had, at one time or another, that fantasy of having sex with a teacher. But realistically that is unacceptable. I am in charge of my child's well being until that child is 18, and God forbid it ever came down to this scenario.
To poster 14.
What is acceptable changes with society, thoughts, and such things?
I can't say the people you know did anything wrong, but I do think that a person that knows they are taking advantage of another person, no matter the age, is committing a crime.
If a 14 year old is sexually advanced, and they are with a 30 year old, the 30 year old has not done anything but gone against an opinion.
A man or woman that uses a child is wrong no matter how they think they feel or need.
I need money, but I don’t rob people to get it.
If you have this issue and you’ve just got to have it, I guess do it were things are set up to make it possible. Where young people have been taught it is normal. That way they are adjusted to it, or taught to it.
Really heavy subject.
I knew for a short time a man that love pre pubescent girls, so he found a grown lady that was small, and not to bright, in my opinion, to be with.
She was able to consent, so he could exercise his fantasy and not harm anyone.
I think the distinction between those who are driven to an attraction to prepubescents and those who act on that attraction is an important one. There was a documentary by Louis Thoreux (spelling?) called a place for pedophiles, which documented attempts by a correctional facility to treat the desires associated with pedophilia...the psychiatrists all concluded that it was acting just like a sexual orientation, not a desire that could be curbed exactly as a desire for, I.E. heroin or crack...difficult, but possible. It was an orientation. Now I do not know, but I do wonder if there are those pedophiles who actively fight, every day, against something they are attracted to, because they wish to cause no harm? Just trying to separate the act and the desire here.
My hat would be off to such people. It's not their fault, as some have pointed out, what they are attracted to. But for the safety of minors they simply cannot act on it.
I also have heard of a woman who married a little person for that very same situation and that guy she married was obviously an adult, and willing to play it out so that is perfectly consensual even if not accepted by so-called polite society.
It's a difficult topic because biological realities are what they are. I'm sure the instances I've cited are far from being the only examples. But teen brains are not fully developed. Actually, the argument can be made that you don't actually reach full adulthood until about 25, when your brain theoretically reaches maximum capacity. I'm all over the map because I don't always know what to think. Maybe the answer is to place the age of consent universally at sixteen? I'm thinking that for most of us, that's when puberty ends or reaches its peak or whatever. I only raise it as a possibility while acknowledging two important facts: (a) There are still going to be sexually advanced fourteen-year-olds out there, and (b) Not every fourteen-year-old is ready for sex; some might not even have reached puberty yet although this is probably less likely now than it was say, 100 years ago. And also, sixteen-year-olds, gay, straight or in-between, male or female, can be coerced by other men or women of either orientation. How do you go about proving between coercion and simple seduction? It's a matter that polite society doesn't want to deal with necessarily, but it's why the matter is interesting to me. I don't think biological reality quite gels with polite society in all instances, but then, sometimes polite society is right. Like I said, I guess I'm all over the map. I will admit though that the last time I was interested in a seventeen-year-old, I was probably fifteen or sixteen.
Well the Jewish believe and some others that a person is an adult after they have learned wrong from right and start to have their own mind. This happens about 12 or 13, and they give them a party to bring them in to adulthood.
I guess if you look at it that way it be upbringing that generates when.
The Spanish, or Mexicans believe a girl becomes a woman at 16. They are treated like it as well.
If you ask me it is a psychological disorder rather than a matter of oreintation. Why is this even beeing questioned?
Man I hope you guys are better than the fucking furries when it comes to pedophilia. "Oh, screw you! My anthropomorphic 8 year old being raped by an adult human male is nothing like a fictional 8 year old being raped by an adult human male!" Oh my god those people I just wanna punch in the face...
But I digress... This is just ridiculous. Homosexuality is okay because it's consenting sexual encounters with adults. By law, children can't consent. And I mean, you can argue that, "well before laws made it illegal for Homosexuals to marry or even commit sodomy" but really, you can convince a 12 year old to do something that they really don't want to, by pressuring them. Children are very vulnerable and often don't know any better, and these people take advantage of that. Do you think that at 12 you knew what having sex with someone really, really meant?
Also, I highly doubt that most modern Jews think that their daughters having sex with older men is okay. It may have made sense back when the life expectancy was 30 or something, but those days are long gone.
If anything you can argue that pedophilia is less of a orientation but rather a fetish. Philia is in its name, which suggests fetish, and it has nothing to do with gender, which is pretty much a prerequisite for orientation. People have rape fetishes but advocating that rape is an orientation is just bloody stupid, since, like pedophilia, it's all about taking advantage of some vulnerability. Why is it that if zoophilia and necrophilia is considered a creepy fetish by almost everyone (well, I guess there are some furries that will defend zoophilia, but they're a severe minority) but there is actually an internet community bent on defending fucking pedophiles is beyond me.
I bet this is because of that recent FBI crackdown, hohoho. Creeps everywhere, you better erase those pictures off of your computers!
To be fare, by the age of 12, I think most people understand it. At least I did.
Daigonite is making a lot of sense here.
when I was a teenager, (by the age of 14 or so,) I was definitely attracted to older men, and if a guy in his late 30's or early 40's (such as one of my teachers,) had approached me, I would have been all over it like sheet rash in a nudist colony. sure, I knew what felt good, but I don't think I was fully aware of all of the risks at that age.
interesting @daigonite are you a furry? just genuinely asking, it'd be interesting to have a few other such perspectives from the alternative community.
Anyway, is the crux of your argument that the difference between an orientation and a fetish is that the orientation is practiced between consenting adults? And here I'm using the legal meanings of consent and adult. If it isn't then forgive me and do restate it.
If it is so, then could one not argue that a fetish for something that cannot consent, I.E. um...shoes? lol, could be an orientation if it was exclusive? As in, the only sexual pleasure a person could receive is from that? By this, you would have to at least consider the possibility that orientations are psychosomatic and not genetic...so just curious.
I didn’t mean to imply that Jews felt it was okay for their daughter to have sex with older men just that at age 12 girls are given a Bat Mitzvah or at 13, boys, the Bar Mitzvah and are thought to be grown or started on life.
I suspect and know Jews are just like any other parents, they don’t want their daughters having sex ever! but. JK.
Seriously, sorry I made it sound that way.
I can definitely relate to fantasizing about some of my teachers, particularly in High School. I had a math teacher who not only sounded friggin' hot but wore a perfume that always drove me crazy. LOL. But of course that would have been illegal even if she hadn't been married with kids. She was my Math teacher in my freshman year. Then there was my Drama teacher in m Senior year.
Personally I think the age of consent should be sixteen. At that age, you're old enough to know what sex is. I also think its wrong to punish an underaged boy for having sex with an under aged girl. Have their parents punish them, yes, but not the police.
For an example of what I'm talking about. There is a boy, whose name escapes me right now, who is on the national sex offender's list. When I read his story he was twelve, he's older now. His crime, a girl had texted him a naked photo of herself, which he had deleted. The rumor got out though, and his phone was ceased and searched. Now he's marked for life at the age of twelve. That's just wrong.
I do think that age of consent goblty-goo should be handled on a case by case basis. Don't tell the f b I I said that. lol.
Agreed. I don't doubt he's not the only one wrongfully marked for life just because of circumstance. And it's been my observation over the years that all it takes to ruin someone's entire life is the merest accusation, even if the accusationis proven to be false. The thought is still there in people's minds.
Oh there are dozens of cases. Search on google and you find countless articles about people, all males as far as I've seen, as young as ten years old on the national sex offenders registry.
Yes, lots of these story's. Many times they are caused by parents getting mad because the daughter is wanting to date an older guy, so they punish the guy for the daughter's mis behavior in their opinion.
Really unfair.
At the age of 18 or like posted, you get this on your record it could mess up your life, and for what? Because you honestly loved or wanted a person?
Abuse, and enjoyment are different things,.
@ Bermuda - No, but I have friends who are, and I do commissions for them, so I tread fairly close to the lion's den. Not all of them are like that, indeed it's a minority, but reading forums that complain about how certain sites took down "cub porn" and it makes me cry a little inside.
I mean I think that yeah, most of us figure out our orientation and things like that before we become legal adults, but I'd be willing to bet that most of us would be willing to say that what they perceived when they were say, 12 or 13, is a lot different than what they perceive now. I may have been a little slow in reaching sexual maturity but I think that we can all understand where I'm coming from.
I agree that we can't just have a single one-size-fits-all age though, personally, because, for example, there's a big difference between a sexual encounter between a 15 year old and a 16 year old, as opposed to a 15 year old and a 45 year old. I mean, we do have to draw the line somewhere but a 16 year old is hardly a pedophile if they're having a sexual encounter with someone who is one year younger than them. This is where the laws get sticky.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't know the furries had anything sexual with their furriness. Maybe I'm wildly mistaken but I thought theirs was more theatrical, playing up animal and anthromorphic or lycanthropic roles.
Thought of them as odd but harmless. Had no idea they as a community had any interest in porn, or "cub porn" whatever that might be. lol
yes, leo, furries are sexual. as I understand it, it arouses them when they're in whatever furry costume gets them in the mood, and it then becomes easier for them to have a sexual encounter with someone, or multiple someones.
Actually there's a whole host of sexual stuff that furries partake in. Fur suits usually aren't made for adult purposes, but they can be. More common though is visual artwork of anthropomorphic animals having sex or partaking in some fetish (and pretty much any fetish you can think of applies). What's creepy is when they start drawing kiddie porn of some rabbit or dog or something, or drawing a Pokemon character or whatever being raped. Good thing your eyes can't be tarnished with such images because they're flat out disgusting.
There's a lot of furries though that just like costumes or anthro animals. I think the costume work is absolutely amazing on some of these characters. I make costumes myself and I can really appreciate what level of work goes into these things.
ah, okay. thanks for clearing that up.
Really interesting.
IN the gay world I think I heard of a similar story. There was a fourteen-year-old boy in love with a sixteen-year-old. They had a relationship for at least two years, and the parents, of course, disapproved. When the older boy turned eighteen, they pressed rape charges against him so now he's on the sexual offender list. I guess this is why I would say the age of consent should be lowered to sixteen, but honestly, I might even consider lowering it to fourteen, but my only reservation on that is biological reality. I think the most of reach puberty by the time we're at least thirteen, but even fourteen may be too young if one's brains don't even stop growing until the age of 25. It's just that I grew up in an age when protecting people wasn't as high on our priority list as it seems to be now. Maybe in some ways it's great we're so concerned about some issues; we have to be more concerned with people in general getting raped, including males. But protecting everyone from every possible harm that could come to someone is just too unrealistic. I dunno. I'm all over the map again, and probably not getting my point out.
I know I said case by case basis. There's a limit. We can't have the age lowered that much because after a while, some sick freak will want it lowered to 10 or something.
Jesus, some parents, really.
Well I mean have some sort of supplement law that basically says that between the ages of 14 and 16, sexual encounters between the youth and someone that is, say, 3 years or less older than the youth, then that's not a problem. I mean I doubt that most people who KNOW they have their 16 year old sons dating 14 year old girls consider their sons sex offenders but if they have even a slight sexual encounter then it's against the law.
Now a line DOES have to be drawn, probably 13-14, to where this is still applicable and before then it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, but as it stands it doesn't take into account this sort of relationship, as short and volatile as they may tend to be. Obviously this extra tidbit doesn't apply any sort of protection to the real predators and just protects those engaging in relationships a little bit early.
In the end, case-by-case basis is probably the best route, but probably not the most reliable one, if for terms of legal confusion.
I honestly think it is because it is sex. If that same person had given the other a few drinks, or gotten them on some sort of drug, he'd not be on a list.
That list should not include people in this group, but no one seems to want to remove it, why, sex.
I don't understand. Sex is a touchy thing in this society to begin with but I don't understand your point. Technically if you have sex with someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol it's considered statutory rape because that person isn't really in the mindset to make that decision. That's why its the same way with people who are considered mentally impaired.
The mentally impaired actually brings up an argument in of itself. Where is the line drawn where someone can make that decision for themselves? I'm mild-moderately autistic but I consider myself able to make that decision for myself, and I've reached the sexual maturity to make that decision, but to others they might consider me not. Who actually makes the decision? Obviously if I press charges against someone then I could possibly argue mental incapacity, but who decides if my argument is valid or not? It's kind of scary when you think about it. I wouldn't do that because that's a major dick thing to do but you get the point.
What I mean is, if an over aged person gives a minor some drugs, or alcoholic substance, that is just a minor crime. The don’t end up on a list that effects their lives. I don’t mean drugging them and having sex with them.
If both persons say the sex was consensual, even though it is against the law, I feel the person that is convicted should maybe receive a fine, not the penalty they now receive.
They broke the law, so a fine, even though the law needs revising.
I'd like to point out that one can get on the sex offender's list simply by pissing in public. So, it is not as if sex is the only thing beeing regulated.
Another thing they need to take off. That is one thing you can get on for, but when was the last time a guy took a piss and got on that list?
actually, a friend of a friend I know of did actually get on the lis, for pissing in public, at 3 AM when drunk...problem was? He was across from a school. Now, no one was in the school at 3 AM, of course but hay! It happened.
So yeah...its not just a mith.
On the subject of drawn/written child erotica I have no problem with that. There has been no documented link between porn and offending...I.E. the conclusions were that those who offended would've done so anyway, irrespective of orn. So draw and write and animate whatever you like...your mind is the only place where you cannot be stopped.
MJ
Gross miss use of power. I'm surprised the judge didn't see that.
speaking of 'philia', I saw a term today in an article by someone, called 'normophilia' which was most straight vanilla people I guess. Meaning their particular kink is all things normal. So their defense of the so-called normal is no different than others defending another kink, because it's just a kink. Made me laugh and kind of makes sense considering some people's out of hand dismissal of things, or comparing them to criminal acts like consent violations.
Hehe. Yep!
Wait, you have no problem with child porn?
Who said anything about child porn?
The simulation argument I have heard and it goes like this:
Simulated porn is not using a victim. so our resources in fighting crime really needs to go towards victims of actual crimes, which tend to be a very difficult job. You have to break up sex rings, deal with heavy arms / high powered ammunition, and really do a job of it in law enforcement. To go after anime porn or something, you just have to bust in some doughboy's basement apartment and haul out weedy stringy geek and be a tough guy haul him off to jail.
It's really laziness, is why people want to have resources spent fighting anime and other virtual environments, since dealing with real trouble, where real hostages might be being taken and real children are at stake is a lot more work. It's kind of a rigged game when you come to think of it: play the moral high ground and win the hearts of the Christians and Femitheists, all while actualy playing the low ground by ignoring real victims and fighting anime. Takes shadow boxing to a whole new level, doesn't it?
Just ask Ashcroft: Highest prosecutor in the land, could have done real damage to international sex trafficking but instead went for what passed as anime porn back in 2000. And all the mommy Christian Femitheists were all excited about getting rid of evil or sin or objectification while the international child sex trade grew.
That is wannabe punks is all that is.
The real evil is shadow boxing against anime porn while leaving real child victims in their plight. The worst of it is, it's cast as good and virtuous, and gets the Christian Femitheists clapping their hands like a pack of school kids themselves on ice cream day at the schoolyard.
There lies my problem, regarding child porn.
Oh and the people who can afford to pay for the services of international sex traders happen to be your highly paid politicians, often those who champion laws about porn or getting porn off your computer, while your college femitheists claim the international sex trade to be a Hollywood myth.
Well honestly while I feel that even drawn child porn is wrong personally, it makes way more sense to actually target those who are taking in real victims than loli if the resources don't permit you to take down both and take down the real life victims for it. I mean personally how I see it is if someone gets off to a bunch of panty shots of 12 year old Japanese anime characters (and I mean DRAWN like 12 year olds, anime has this weird age thing where sometimes they say a character is 12 and they look like they're in their 20s and vice versa), and then has a daughter, or is a teacher or something... yeah, that's way too close to comfort to me. Obviously the real deal should be hammered down a lot more severely, but there's not enough of a difference to make me feel any more comfortable with that person with a child for me.
All this talk reminds me of that pastor or whatever a few years ago that used to encourage college-age girls to kill themselves for a horny kick... some people are just sick.
Ok, lets make some lines here, and sorr if this gets a little personal. I watch porn, I'm not ashamed to say that. I get off on porn that has the girl screaming at the top of her lungs. I love that stuff. If its anal, even better.
Now, when I have a girlfriend, I don't insist she scream and take it up the ass. Cuz porn isn't real. Porn is a victimless crime, even crudely drawn child porn.
Uh...you may want to be careful there. Some porn is blatantly fake and all that, but I'm pretty sure some porn involves real people performing sexual acts. It happened, was recorded, and becomes available.
To say it's a victimless crime...that depends on the type of porn. Two or more consenting adults who know exactly what they're doing? Okay, maybe. But if a minor is involved with real porn, that's not victimless at all. And if you're in any way perpetuating the distribution or creation of real child porn, then you're a guilty party. You didn't do those things with that child, but you were a silent participant.
And no, I'm not saying that you like child porn, Cody, only suggesting that if it's actual porn involving real people, there can still be line-crossing going on. Serious line-crossing, at that.
Well even if it's fake it still involves sexual acts. And when someone's 12 they really can't understand the weight of those acts, even if it is just for show.
The problem I have with drawn child porn is that I mean, if some guy gets off to kiddie porn that's drawn on a piece of paper, then do you want that person going near your kids, or children that are related to you, or love, or know, or any kids even? I mean, he bloody well gets off to kids. Even though they're drawn on a piece of paper. I mean maybe it's more difficult to understand because pretty much everyone here is blind but I mean most people, if they look at a drawing of something they find arousing, and see the same kind of thing in real life, they get aroused by that too. I'm the same way, as are most people. So that means that most likely, people who are getting off to kids in drawings are getting off to kids in real life, and that's pretty scary.
I can see that, I wasn't so much defending someone getting off as I was defending the rights of the real imprisoned, like the 12-year-old you mentioned. That kid should get help, which should be the way we spend our resources fighting this issue. Then once they're all free and the cages destroyed then and only then is it reasonable to go after paper drawings. And though I have always been blind I understand what you mean because I get off to a woman's voice but never a little girl's voice. We who are blind simply use sound and other things, so we can completely understand your point. I only say the fight against child porn has more to do with rescuing hostage kids and getting them help, and so shouldn't involve virtual stuff of drawings. Recorded voices would be another issue though because that would require a real human child again, a child slave or hostage who needs to be rescued. That shit does cause a biological response in me but it's not getting off, it's more akin to putting me off my food or making me flat out need to puke, so. Yeah I do get what you're saying. I just think our primary and exclusive effort should be going to free the living breathing hostages of this situation, the child sex slaves.
Oh, I see, I understand now. I never really thought about it like that, but I notice that in my friends, so I guess you're right. I quite agree with your opinion there because taking down the actual predators than the easy targets is what's going to move forward in stopping this bullshit and hammering it down.
hahaha! whoa! my god! little kids on the sex offenders list? wow! that is just waaaaaay to funny! I mean…., please…..! it's awful though. The cops must be to free and too bored no other suspects to punish so lets punish the little kids! *shivers*
And, great post there post 14. brilliant stuff, that was my train of thought over here as well. I agree with 15 or so I think I mean lowering the legal sexual age. I just find it to condemn a 19 or 20 years old of awful, dirty, sexual offenses, just because he did something sexual with a 15 years old. I mean, if it was consensual both ways and they were madly in love and stuff, I don't see the problem. it's not like anyone is doing anything bad, there. the 15 years old wants this too.
but, don't be mistaken I don't agree with pediphilia either. just think some of the older cases could be arguable. because the some scenarios mentioned in post 14 wasn't bad either. but yes, if you are going to force anyone 13 or older to have sex with you then, yes that's wrong and should be punished.
I agree with silver. I say it's a mental disorder. throw it in the dsm already and take the add and adhd stuff out. medicate these people instead of those poor little kids! it's not an orientation so much as a distortion of thinking. and healthy thinking too so a mental disorder, and disability.
hi,
Ok, in the vain of a post above here, have this. I am a porn watcher, even some pretty heavy stuff invonvling simulated noncon...I.E. rape fantasy, BDSM ETC.
Are you telling me, then, that I cannot tell the difference between a girl simulating those acts for the benefit of those watching, and a girl just casually walking down the street? Am I going to go rape her? No! Of course bloody not.
By that definition, something drawn, or even written because let us not forget that there is plenty written shit out there that is pretty fucked up, should not be prosecuted because people are too afraid of it going into rl. Leave the ability to tell fact from fiction to the consumer, where it should remain.
I think science would bear out what you're saying about what happens on screen doesn't translate into real life.
A lot of groups claimed strip clubs would increase rapes in the areas where the strip clubs exist, and often have a few shady statistics to back it, their equivalent of what the six day creationists do.
But zoos would be happier if it did work this way because they've had trouble getting some of the great apes to breed, who are going extinct. They had the apes watch porn. They got off to the ape porn (ape on ape for you prudes / would-be perverts), they masturbated, they did the works.
But put them with potential mates and they were no more likely to mate than before. The only change was if you put a potential mate in the enclosure with them, and they both got off on the porn together, then there was mating behavior.
This of course was the hard sciences, not the soft sciences who are basically owned in large part by dogmas, so it never made it into the mainstream. That and it threatened the adult eww factor.
Since I personally have a serious adult eww factor to rape porn, child porn and other nonconsensual (acted or otherwise), I'm no different than most. But rationally, one can not ascribe real rapes and real molestations to porn.
That's just more of the dogma that claims all men in particular are potential rapists. The truth is rapists are rapists and need no porn to get there. If you have a serial killer claim it was porn, society believes them because they're backing up the societal dogmas. Take Ted Bundy, for instance. Now I don't know whether or not he ever used rape porn. All I know now, and even knew as a teenager when he was executed was, I didn't believe a word he said. The jury hadn't believed him, and every psychopath in the book draws attention to themselves and blames something else. What an attention-grabber to latch on to the popular view and get free press before he was executed. Maybe even try to exonerate his own name. After all, he wanted to be the hero in the end, warning all wayward souls not to do as he did, watch porn and thereby commit rapes and murders.
That's not real, and if it were, the zoos would have an easier time breeding these near-extinct species who are quite obviously susceptible to porn just like us.
As an aside, is it uncomfortably hot where you are right now? Because if you just eat turkey, and all your friends eat turkey, the temperature should drop. Can't you see the relationship? Every year, people eat a vast amount of turkey around November in the U.S. and the temperature is cold. So from a soft sciences type of standpoint we can infer that if you'd just eat enough turkey you will lower the temperature and you'll all be cooler. So there ya go: that "logic" just solved global warming.
People shouldn't be watching rape simulation, drawing pictures of people being raped, or writing fantacies about raping people. That's just sick. People who do that sort of thing should be locked up.
I dunno, I think that, for the sake of fairness here, people should be permitted to get off on whatever it is they get off on--no matter how sick you or I might think it is--as long as nobody is harmed. Hell, some people think people who enjoy BDSM are sick, but are they really? Or is it just that they have different preferences than you do? Again, provided nobody is getting hurt, what's the real harm? And Leo is right: most people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. If you can't, you probably have a psychological disorder. We might recoil and go "oh Jesus, that person is messed up in the head" but that doesn't mean that that person should be told he or she can't indulge his or her fantasies anymore, in the privacy of his or her home, with no victims to speak of. So if they can simulate child porn, and it helps people with honest-to-goodness desires they can't help take the edge off without harming an actual child, I say more power to them. I don't have to like it, I just have to point out that I have no idea what it would be like to desire something as innocent (and as untouchable) as a child, maybe even against my own will. Just because they desire them, doesn't mean that desire doesn't repulse them as well, when they think of fulfilling it with a living breathing child.
The thing about porn with adults is you can actually have it. If you want to rape someone, you can have someone pretend with you.
You can do all the things except murder with an adult.
Now this doesn't mean what you see you'll do in real life, but you could.
If child porn turns you on, you'll want it as well maybe. Now, you might not get it, or act on it, but the fact it floats your boat is interesting.
I wonder if you had a situation where the real thing was offered, just like that screaming girl thaking it anally and loving it and screaming, would you do a child?
Something to think about.
I put child porn on the same level as having all my teeth pulled with no novacine. Simulated or not.
sorry senior. hate to break it to you, but you are solidly wrong. Come back with some evidence, really verified evidence not just anecdotal reports, and maybe we'll take your ideological opinionated drivel seriously.
In response to post 61, of course you can tell the difference, but the thing is, you are pretty much turned on by those things. Someone's not just gonna do that walking down the street. But if you're turned on by kids... well, yeah, you can also tell the difference between a drawing and the real deal, but it's the same idea, the same thread lies. That's the big problem I have with it. I mean it's like being turned on to guys with beards or something, some people are into that, it doesn't matter if it's drawn or real life, it's the same reaction... that's what makes me uncomfortable about it. And audio porn in the case of pedophilia is even worse because you can't just "fake" the noises a child makes and make them convincing *shudders*. I hate to sound intolerant, but this comes from someone who's been on the very dark side of the internet, and is immune to almost everything it has to throw in my face, bar pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, and incest. You kind of start to see the difference between fetishes that involve harming a consensual being and those that don't, and yes, it's a very hard line to draw.
In response to rape fantasies, rape fantasies don't quite function the same way. Rape fantasies usually have a sort of "pretend" or "role play" kind of element with them that ties them in with other fetishes as well. That's why you have a lot more people who have rape fetishes in comparison to the actual number of rapists out there. I guess it has something to do with either pleasure from feeling violated (by someone you trust in most cases) or violating someone else (to someone that trusts you in these cases). Sure, its consensual, which defeats the purpose of "rape" but it's role-play, and I think all of us have role played something, sexual or not, in our lives that we wouldn't really partake in (or couldn't partake in).
I guess the real argument is more about whether or not the content that doesn't involve harming an actual being, such as drawn child porn, is on par with vileness with real child porn. I mean personally I feel that it is, although the real stuff should be targeted first, and it's only because of the fact that it simply gives fap-bait to some sick minded creep, who could be a teacher, or a preacher, or a whatever.
Exactly, and if that teacher, preacher, or whatever had the chance to have it readl you have to wonder would they? Nasty.
What goes on between adults is all good to me. When you victimize a child no.
I'll put a different spin on things. As I said, when I was fourteen or fifteen, if someone older than I took a shine to me, I’d have gone for it. I don’t think it would’ve done me any harm, although I would’ve put an age limit on how old the person would’ve been. Would I have gone for someone in their 20s, 30s or even early 40s? Yes, frankly I would have, because I think there’s a lot of the submissive in me even though to look at me you probably wouldn’t think so. Past 45, and the eeewww factor would’ve kicked in, but then, some of that would’ve depended on the voice.
Now, I recently completed a story that was for my own entertainment. As I said, I’ve got a lot of the sub in me, so I really get off on abduction/rape fantasies in which I was the victim. Mind you, the perp in all my scenarioes was someone I invented, grew to know and trust, but who arguably violated that trust by kidnapping me and forcing me to be his love slave. In the fantasies, I was anywhere from fourteen to seventeen, and so by society’s definitions, I was a child or minor, not a full-grown adult. But other than abduction and rape, which eventually grew into a consensual relationship, the perp in my scenarioes had no intent to harm me; just wanted me as both a plaything and love object.
I recently wrote an entire novelette based on this fantasy, which had some sci-fi elements thrown in there, but it was pure invention. It was fiction; nothing about it was real because nothing like this has ever even happened to me. And yes, I drew heavily off of either myself or people I either knew in years past or on people I purely invented. Also, my main character is a blind teenager, fifteen years old. But according to post 63, I’m sick and should be locked up. This is one major reason I’ve never posted the story even though I have a feeling it could garner an audience. Believe me, I’ve seen some pretty sick stuff online, and I simply draw the line on what I want to read; no incest, no violence aside from the actual rape fantasies. And definitely nothing involving watersports or scat. But the perp in my story was a guy in his late 20s, and the main character, kind of a take-off on myself, was fifteen and blind. Ergo, I ask how that would've flown with the so-called mainstream audiences out there?
I get where daigonite and other posters are coming from. I would have hoped that it were clear by now but just in case, I'm not advocating legalising actual cp or anything connected to it. But what we write about, draw, animate or anything else is a victimless crime. Maybe it gives someone a thrill...maybe it even stops that person from doing something in rl they might regret. But I can't get behind the argument that all who view it are more likely to purpitrate an illegal act, any more than those who read Nabokov or the marquis de sade, or watch Japanese anime.
Furthermore I would argue that it is the individual and the market that should decide what level of material is societally acceptable, not the state on a moral crusade for the presupposed moral fabric of a people. Only where there is harm...actual, quantifiable harm to an individual, should legal controls be imposed.
I have had friends into some crazy dark shit...never violated the law but they were into all sorts...I knew them as friends first and I still do. I'd trust them with my insert paraphilia here, kids, animals, corpse, possessions, whatever. And if fantascising about x and y from drawings or writings helps 'em sleep at night...shit, who am I to judge.
Me
Well, this is a tough thing to say. I'm not in to porn unless I'm watching it with someone I can have after the show. It also must be adult porn.
I can't pretend to understand how this should be thought about.
A 15 or 17 year old that has a desire for an older person in my book would not be a victum. Only a kid that had no desire, nor knew what was happening, nor was above the age or maybe 12.
@Johndy, isn't what you're describing called Stockholm Syndrome, or something like that? Where you have a kidnapped victim who grows to love their captor? I've just heard of this as it pertains to abuse situations, which is why I kept thinking of only the Stockholm thing when reading your post.
Again, if it's written, it's victimless clearly there is no person involved except the author and reader. But it sounds like something from 1984 where the tortured man grew to love his tormentor.
Here is where I have to stand on issues such as this.
Any sexual act among consenting and mentally stable people is fine with me.
I don’t think people with this need are excited by consenting or mentally stable people though, so if given the chance to have the actual would take advantage of it if they were sure they’d not get caught.
I don’t understand getting pleasure from any sexual act that hurts or takes advantage of another.
I feel that people with this need should examine why they have it, or if it gets to pressing, should seek help with the reasons why.
As long as the need remains a fantasy, and the porn watched is simulated, or read, I can’t find fault with it.
When it crosses over to reality I want them arrested.
Cody, porn may be a fanticy but not all porn is fake. I turn your attention to the so called amiture vids on the net.
Wayne has summarized my views beautifully. Thank you.
I have a question related to something said a few posts back, concerning rape fantasies.
I must be missing the boat here. How does that even work, literally? I mean, how can you roleplay a rape? If you, the victim, are roleplaying it, you're doing it because you consented. If you're being tied up, pinned down, you consented to have that done as well. Hell, from what I understand, many hardcore subs have a safe word, so if it turns out to get too scary you can throw that out there and be let loose. All of this is to say...well, it's not rape. Rape victims don't have a safe word and didn't consent to it in the first place. So my question is: wouldn't calling it a rape fantasy be awfully strong, at least insofar as roleplaying goes? Sounds like extreme submission to me.
That's a brave question I wondered about but dared not ask, glad someone did. I don't get it either. I cannot ever see consenting to roleplay as the rapist, would not even know how and that I am not embarrassed to say.
This is why you have women who lie about rape. They don't really know what it is because all this s & M shit confuses women.
I think women lie about rape, because they don't want to be blamed or said to have enticed the man.
Sexfor some people is shameful, and if you have to say you were raped, you have to talk about sex and how it was you invited it.
They don't want to fight the uphill battle.
I think most rape cases it starts out "what did you do, not who hurt you.
Post 66
Senior, go grab a dictionary, or just use google, and look up the phrase "correlation versus causation". Then come back here and we'll all snicker at you for being stupid. Go on now, shoo shoo.
Now then, I want to make something perfectly clear. Rape is not sex. Rape is domination. I want that to be perfectly and completely clear. Rape is not, in any way shape or form, sex. It is a man forcing a woman into the situation he feels she should be in. It is domination, nothing more than that.
Now then, back to drawings. If I were to draw a picture of a plane flying into a building, what crime would I be guilty of? If I draw a picture of a carbomb blowing up an elementary school, what crime would I have commited?
But lets take a different tack here. I'm sure we've all heard of or seen the james bond movies, or at least one of them. I love these movies. I love when something blows up, and the bad guy gets killed, and the hot woman gets laid. I eat that shit up. Does that make me an arsonist, terrorist, murderer and rapest because I watched these things and enjoyed them? Of course it doesn't, your premiss falls apart.
If a man draws a picture of a naked six year old, and gets off on it in the privacy of his own room, absolutely no one has been harmed. We don't have thought police in this country. You cannot do harm with your thoughts, its impossible. You are allowed to think any vile and horrific act you want to. It is not illegal. It is at the point where you can no longer tell the difference between imagination and reality that you need treatment.
Oh, and to answer the question asked of me earlier, ammature porn, unless you personally made it, is still fake to you. Its two people you don't know having sex on a screen. That's fake. By your logic all movies are real because they have real people. James Bond is still fake even though it uses real actors.
thank you for clarifying the rape definition. People always seem to think it's about sex, but if it were about sex, we wouldn't have rape because there are far easier and less risky ways to get sex. It's about power. Do you think the rapist who rapes an eighty-year-old woman in her apartment is thinking about how good the sex will be?
the premise of writing or drawing adult porne and child porn is the same. And neither are going to make someone want to sleep with random people and have sex or rape a kid. basically agree with what the majority is about on drawing and writing child porn is not the same as going out to have sex with a kid. It doesn't make sense the arguments. I won't restate why they don't have connection, it was shown above. just pointing out that premises with both types of porn drawn or written is about the same.
I don't think people who draw or write child porn should be punished at all. that's like arresting people for playing shooting games. or games that would be illegal in real life.
Sorry, senior. You've been intellectually outclassed. To be fair, I'm sure you're used to It, hense why you resort to argumentem ad hominem attacks against me instead of against my argument...classic inferior behaviour.
To the other posters, very well expressed and eloquently put.
Again I will reiterate, the pedophiles actually hate kids, the same way rapists hate women. Had I personally come to that realization far earlier in life I would possibly have had fewer of the confusing messages. They no more love the kids than the torturer loves the victim. It's merely a case of imposed Stockholm syndrome on the victim, plus mind control, and even dogma.
None of that would come out in anime or pictures.
Lots of sick bastards out there, is all I need say.
Yes, Leo, this is clearly Stockholm syndrome in which the vic character does eventually develop a loving relationship with his abductor. I want a lot of ambiguity in terms of this because the teenage boy in this story is a very independent blind teenager. He was taken away from everything he’s ever known and loved and has had his freedom compromised, but he’s also a very normal gay hormonal teenager, so the sexual things that happen to him are very exciting and confusing. I have him getting to know the perp well before the actual kidnapping takes place, and he sort of starts fantasizing about him well before it actually happens. Also, the perp gets to know the vic, grows to like and respect him as a perp and actually has a pretty enlightened attitude toward blindness. But the fact that the vic is blind has me thinking never to release the story because I know how things get when disability and blindness is added into the mix. I mean, I’ve seen other stories online in which perps and vics do develop a relationship, and in that respect, mine is not really that different except for the fact that the vic is totally blind. But you’d have one side of the fence screaming how dare you do this to some poor helpless blind teenager, and the other side saying why did you make the vic blind because it’s gunna re-enforce stereotypes about the helplessness of blind people. In short, the whole thing probably wouldn’t be pretty. But I’m thinking of making some drastic revisions in the story to make the character a young adult and putting him into a more consensual situation for that very reason. I do hate the way most blind people are portrayed in fiction, but that’s probably a subject for a different topic.
I have to say this.
Maybe Senior has been outmatched in a purely academic sense. I stress the word "maybe" because some of it is down to tolerance. However, academic superiority and snobbery do not have to go hand in hand.
One would not walk into a rape center and attempt to incense the people who work or are being treated there. Rape is a horrible thing when it happens. But someone being shot in the head, mugged, beaten to death with a tire iron, or electrocuted and then fed through a wood-chipper...those are horrible things too. Similarly, when a child is used and abused, that's wrong. You don't do that.
If someone has actual verifiable scientific evidence documenting a link between, say, the viewing of simulated (NOT REAL!) child porn and pedophilia, then by all means show it. Otherwise, it's just a hyped-up version of the old argument people pulled out when video games got violent and a couple of people claimed that some video game or other inspired them. It happened in the seventies and eighties with death metal too, but I think the correlation is tenuous.
Please, folks. If we are purporting to have an academic discussion, let's dispense with the childish superiority games. State and/or explain why someone's argument doesn't make sense. Do it really thoroughly if you like. But don't treat them like a fool even if you think they're being a fool. It's counterproductive.
Obviously there are studys linking the two or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm asking this because the only rape situations I've heard of had sex involved, so I don't get how rape equals domination without sex. Maybe it's because I don't exactly know a lot about it, and I'm only going off of what I've heard about rape in the News and other similar resources but I figured I'd ask to understand this better.
It had the physical act of sex involved, yes, but not sex. Contrary to popular belief, men don't rape girls who they find attractive simply because they do find them attractive. Our brains are wired to want reciprocation. We want that pretty girl in the bar to like us back. We humans are social animals after all.
Rapists don't go out and find a cute girl and rape her because she's cute, at least not the type of rapist we're talking about here. They go out, find a girl who they view as being out of place, and put her back into place. They dominate her, prove their power over her. The most unmistakeable way to do that is to sexually violate her.
Let me know if that makes sense.
Thanks, it does. It's one of those things I understand when explained, but wouldn't ever consider doing. I like being dominating but not aggressively dominating.
In other words, you like beeing the more dominant one in the relationship. There is a big difference from beeing dominant to beeing dominating. Dominance is wired into us whereas beeing overly dominant is a social construct.
i think we all agree, pedafiliais not a seual orientation. yes once upon a time thousands of years ago men would have sex with minors. marriages were arranged, and slavery was a otay. in the words of the saint augustus, paraphrasing, a law should be judged good and faire if it elevates the human experiance. bad or not good if it retards us. there is nothing gained by deeming child molestors as being independant of hetro,bi, or homo sexuals. evelovetion agrees with no one but it simply does its job. it ensures we stand, walk, and maintain some order. sadlley sex trafficing is on the rise. sex crimes are on the rise as well. solution? in a case by case where there is a gross age difference the death penalty should be an option. child molestors can never be cured. some therapys can curtail the desire but a cure? nope.we might desagree on the age limit of consent. we might even lower it but an adult lusting after a child is mentaly ill. death sounds more humane. no?
Agreed with the last post. Intelligent sex laws would solve this issue.
Ryan, on the rape question, many rapists will take an aphrodisiac or something similar to enhance themselves. We're not biologically wired to be excited by a woman's pleading, crying in pain, or other fearful reactions. The environment of fear and that of sex, even casual sex, are incompatible for humans and bonobos. It's not mental: it's your manhood that would refuse to stand at attention in that situation. You said you would never consider doing. This is a myth from the feminist movement, that all men are potential rapists.
In reality most aren't, and you fall in the category of 'most' on this one. Most of us, if we could even bring ourselves to attempt it would fail. Again, biology: men want to be wanted. Women may have a list of standards for a potential mate, but most men just want to be wanted, and find being wanted the most stimulating of occurrences. During a rape situation he is certainly not wanted, and so is far outside the norm for most men. Again, probably using an artificial stimulant of some kind.
You said you're a dominant in the relationship. I'm out of my element on this one, not being a dominant myself, but I'm guessing you want to be wanted also, and in most your private fantasies you are sought after. And that is pretty normal and pretty wired in the biology of male humans as well as a lot of other species.
This is what makes rape, pedophilia and other nonconsensual activities so foreign and hard to understand for most of us. I personally think that due to our wiring it's probably impossible for males like you or I to understand them.
Leo, we will be turned on if, in the past, a woman's crying lead to something. This comes from my own past destructive relationships. Nope, that's not hard wiring...somebody fucked around with the circuits! Of course, context plays a part. If my fiance is truly in pain I am horrified. In fact, it haunts me for days.