The average pedophile might complain that he can’t have access to kids, but he would not actually get ensnared by the laws were it not for the child porn prohibitions. The reason is that he wouldn’t actually have the opportunity to try to entice some kid (unless there were a sting operation), since he probably wouldn’t have access to a kid. However, it’s relatively easy to get access to child porn.
When you think about it, they have a lot in common.
Why do so many incels use anime avatars? It’s to substitute for degenerate, unpleasant, uncooperative modern femoids by putting forth an image of an idealized femoid. The waifu is perfect in every way — submissive, loving, innocent, etc.
It’s the same with child porn; the prepubescent girl is idealized as undefiled, sweet, and cute, in contrast to the Chad-obsessed pubescent girl who ruthlessly pursues her alpha fucks/beta bucks imperative.
In reality, even if we could bring anime to life, those girls would just behave like any other femoids, because AWALT. Remember how Jessica Rabbit behaved as a thot, when she was brought into the world of non-cartoon men? It’s the same issue that arises when you bring foreign femoids into the U.S. as mail-order brides; even if they’re from a country like the Philippines where divorce is illegal, that doesn’t preclude them for filing for divorce in American courts once they’re here.
Similarly, although prepubescent femoids are idealized as better than pubescent femoids, they can still be very manipulative. As soon as they can talk, they instinctively start lying to get out of trouble, to obtain what they want, etc. That’s just immutable female nature. As they develop and gain experience, they’ll become more subtle in their manipulativeness.
If there’s a power balance between young foids and older men, it’s mostly because young foids haven’t yet become experts at using deceit to get men to do what they want. People usually say, “Older men will trick little girls into sex.” It’s more like, little girls might not be as adept at exploiting men for their resources yet, without resorting to cuteness as a means of persuasion.
A redpilled man will realize, all older femoids have to offer, that younger femoids lack, is greater ability to get men to do what they want, through deployment of a bag of tricks they’ve perfect over years. But older femoids are still jealous of younger femoids’ cuteness, which has a more reliable effect on men than older femoids attempts to spin their drawbacks as virtues (e.g. by saying “age” is equivalent to “maturity” or that “sluttiness” is equivalent to “experience” (i.e. sexual prowess).)
Like incel sites, child porn sites served as (mostly) all-male hangouts, where men could hang out in a comfy environment and pass the time without the need for femoids. We can’t have that, though, apparently.
I remember back circa 2000, it was easy to find photos of naked children. Internet sites would have whole galleries of them that you could download. They would proclaim that this was totally legal, because it didn’t count as child pornography.
These days, that’s getting hard to find. If you do a Google Image Search on “naked children” you won’t find a lot of frontal nudity of white children, except maybe babies. (Too bad I’m not a nepiophile.)
You get better search results using DuckDuckGo, but it still doesn’t seem quite the same as how it used to be, when the Internet was wilder and freer. To assemble a collection, especially of decent pics, you have to work harder at it these days.
Why is there no Domai featuring minors? That’s not a porn site, like its sister site, Goddess Nudes. There theoretically should be nothing wrong with a little kid showing off her body for the camera, the way the girls in the Domai images do. But maybe it would be hard to find a webhost that would allow a site like that on its servers. I just don’t like people’s prudish attitude, where they have to shut everything down that might appeal to pedophiles, or even hebephiles.
If you google “nudism” you can find a lot of stuff, but a lot of it is behind a paywall. Also, much of what comes up under a search for “nudism” is actually porn rather than true nudism.
A question that always came to my mind, during Piper’s court case, was, “Why is this case being tried in Colorado? Why not Virginia?” Virginia would’ve been a much more favorable jurisdiction for my purposes.
The reason is that, according to the Colorado Children’s Code, “all proceedings brought under this article shall be commenced in the county in which the child resides or is present.”
But why? The mother of the child can then take the kid to whatever jurisdiction she thinks will be most favorable to her, and deny the father his rights.
To me, that’s like if the law said that if a man were to commit a crime, he should be tried in whatever jurisdiction he fled to. That would give the defendant an unfair advantage over the victim. For that reason, that’s not the way the law works.
Per the Vicinage Clause, he’s to be tried by an impartial jury “of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”. The Extradition Clause says, “A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.” This gives the advantage to the victim.
Shouldn’t Child Protective Services laws work the same way? The case should be tried in the jurisdiction where the child was conceived — in this case, Virginia. That was where a lot of the acts that gave rise to the case — e.g., the statements I made to August, that she later used against me — happened.
August was also the one to leave the marriage and go to Colorado, where she would have had an advantage in being the in-state litigant; why should the spouse who breaks up the family, by leaving and taking the kid with her to another state, have the advantage? I guess it’s just a case of possession being 9/10ths of the law, but we don’t apply that rule when there’s an allegation of theft. We extradite, so the case can be tried in the jurisdiction where the theft happened, and where the victim lives.
The Colorado Children’s Code says, with regard to paternity, “A person who has sexual intercourse in this state thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to an action brought under this article with respect to a child who may have been conceived by that act of intercourse. . . . . The action may be brought in the county in which the child or the alleged father resides or is found”. So obviously there’s some precedent for basing venue on where a child was conceived, and/or where the father lives.
This same kind of issue arises in restraining order cases. Colorado law says, “Venue for filing a motion or complaint pursuant to this section is proper in any county where the acts that are the subject of the motion or complaint occur, in any county where one of the parties resides, or in any county where one of the parties is employed.”
Why should a woman be allowed to leave her husband and then get a restraining order against him in another state, where maybe the laws will be a lot less favorable to him? Shouldn’t she have to get the restraining order in the jurisdiction where whatever she’s accusing him of having done to her happened? It seems like a man should have the right to avoid being under a particular jurisdiction by not having anything to do with that jurisdiction; but these laws can cause him to be subject to some other jurisdiction that he never went to nor did anything involving.
E.g., in my case, August claimed that I raped her, sent a letter to her parents, etc. All that (allegedly) happened in Virginia. So why not file the case in Virginia’s courts? Or if it’s a federal matter, file it in federal court, so it can be taken care of under federal law (which, as a U.S. citizen, I would have some say in making, unlike Colorado law).
I would almost say, maybe we should just go ahead and federalize Child Protective Services proceedings. The only reason not to, is if it would interfere with local experimentation with child protection policies and systems.
But the feds already interfere in a lot of matters involving child protection. E.g., Terry Hoff was charged under federal law with producing child porn that never crossed state lines. Although the child porn never left Wyoming, that U.S. state is not allowed to experiment with its own policies concerning child porn. (It’s the same way with pot, under Gonzales v. Raich; California was not allowed to experiment with its own laws concerning medical cannabis).
I guess the idea is, the feds for whatever reason don’t think they can properly deal with the “problem” of child porn unless they federalize the issue. Well, it’s the same way with these interstate child protection cases. The U.S. Constitution federalizes certain matters, like bankruptcies, for a reason — it’s so that when there’s a lot of stuff going on that transcends state boundaries, people don’t try to take unfair advantage by going to a different jurisdiction.
Maybe, when it’s impossible to deal with an issue without federalizing it, we should take that as a sign that perhaps we’re taking the entirely wrong approach to the issue. E.g., we could just have a patriarchal system that gives fathers absolute rights over their wives and daughters, and then a lot of these child protection issues would be moot. All that would need to be adjudicated would be ownership, which would be simple enough. The Full Faith and Credit Clause would take care of that, by requiring marriage and birth certificates to be recognized by other states.
Federalization is partly how we got in this mess to begin with. If it weren’t for federal laws like the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, I probably could have just grabbed Piper and taken her back to Virginia, since it was really August who kidnapped her. Also, federal laws like the Violence Against Women Act order states to give full faith and credit to restraining orders of other states; were it not for that, you could just hang out in a state that has laws making it hard to issue restraining orders, and ignore a restraining order issued by a state you didn’t plan to go to. Then of course there’s 18 U.S. Code § 922, making it illegal to possess a gun if any state has a restraining order in effect against you; that’s a problem from a Second Amendment standpoint, given that these are civil rather than criminal proceedings.
One of the arguments I hear the most is, “Child pornography is banned to discourage people from making more of it.”
Yeah, maybe the illegality of it does deter some people from making it for distribution. That doesn’t mean they weren’t going to make it for their own personal use, or that they weren’t going to do sexual stuff with kids when they had the opportunity, regardless of whether they were going to photograph it.
We don’t really have evidence that a child pornography ban diminishes the amount of adult-child sex that goes on. It could actually increase it, if you believe the studies by Milton Diamond.
Another argument that could be made, but isn’t made much anymore (since Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition) is that child pornography can whet people’s appetite for sex with kids. That might be true to some extent, but I think written propaganda and erotic fiction like The Lolita Method can be even more powerful. Yes, someone can get hard by watching the Vicky series, but Vicky is kind of expressionless so it’s not actually all that hot, aside from the fact that the stuff she does with her mouth seems kind of amazing, especially for a young kid.
In contrast, written propaganda can convince people that these relationships are acceptable, and erotic fiction can create an idealized fantasy in people’s minds. We know from the sale of romance novels how popular that genre is. It’s addictive enough that girls will buy large numbers of such books.
It seems like most honest or semi-honest men will just say, “Sex with little girls isn’t my cup of tea,” but there are some men who will say the idea disgusts them.
Can you honestly say that the thought of getting your dick sucked by a three-year-old girl disgusts you? I don’t feel disgusted by it.
If you ever get an opportunity to view the CP video, “Vicky’s First Taste,” let me know what your reaction is to watching a prepubescent girl suck on her dad’s penis. The way she behaves toward his penis is so typical of how girl is with the first penis she’s ever sucked in her life. She treats it like it’s something special and worthy of adoration. She spoils her dad with what she does with her mouth, lips, tongue, etc. in such a loving way.
I’m not even sure she was all that excited to be doing sexual stuff with her dad, but she did at least behave in a compliant and good-natured way. She approached his penis with the proper spirit of being a good sport and wanting to please him. I don’t know whether he told her exactly what he wanted her to do, or if she was coming up with it on her own, turning fellatio into an art form, but I wish I had been the man getting his penis sucked by her.
It could also be that she just wanted to hurry up and get him off so she could move on to doing something else. Her whole body was swaying back and forth as she was bobbing her head, taking his cock in and out of her mouth. I should watch that again sometime, but I’d have to deal with all the decryption technology and whatnot and I don’t feel like going to the effort.