Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity

an evolutionary perspective […] helps us understand why sexual transgressions by successful males, as well as the seemingly irrational levels of moral outrage at those transgressions, are both "natural," regardless of whether you personally feel that either is intrinsically good or bad.

Finally an intelligent comment about the moral condemnation hysteria of Tiger Woods.  Evolutionary Theory by Kurzban and deScioli

Men fantasize about novel women. Rich powerful man can actually get them

Tiger is a man with immense wealth and social status. Throughout history, men with wealth and status have tended to trade it for access to multiple mates. Evolutionary historian Laura Betzig has documented this pattern in modern societies and throughout history, as in the abundant cases of Roman emperors, Indian maharajahs, Arabian sheiks, and Chinese mandarins. Bhupinder Singh, the wealthy and powerful Seventh Maharajah of the state of Patiala, for example, had 350 wives, and he by no means held the record. European and North American states tend to be officially monogamous, but of course they are unofficially polygamous as well. Rock stars, famous athletes, politicians and even television evangelists are reliable sources of public outrage, which fires up every time we learn about their frequently overactive private lives.[…]

Kinsey found that the typical male masturbated with some frequency, during such activities men often fantasize about novel women. What if the man was sufficiently attractive that those fantasy women were actually ready, willing, and eager to turn desire into reality? The average heterosexual man would, under those circumstances, perhaps act like the average homosexual man (who is unconstrained by a more selective target audience), or like the average rock superstar: he would take hundreds of partners.

Psychology Today. December, 2009. Kenrick, D. T. “In "Defense" of Tiger Woods, AND of his critics." [link]

 

Moral outrage keeps others in check. So powerful men don’t monopolize too many women

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity” »
Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity
» continues here »

Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. What kind of rape?

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/


Video from 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.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. What kind of rape?” »
Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. Wha…
» continues here »

Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?

Any six year old knows perfectly well if s/he is coerced while overpowered and threatened, or acts consensually out of free will.

Try to explain her/nim that the stupid adults have defined all sexual activity even of late 17 year or 15 year old  adolescents as non-consensual. So it is the same "non-consensual rape" if a 17 year old takes the initiative to work hard to seduce an adult to have sex, or if the same adult rapes him/her at knifepoint. 

The first example is "statutory rape"  and the second is "forcible rape", the reader might retort. That differentiation has long been lost outside theoretical academic discussion.

The press happily reports about trials and conviction of "rapists" that raped the victim 300 times. No, she did not lock up the "victim" in a dungeon for years, like Mr. Fritzl. The victim came always came back for more, but did not consent (by our weird definition of legal consent). Human-Stupidity even documented a case where the rapist, unbeknownst to him,  was duped by the victim into raping her.

Children of 6,8, or 15 years risk serious legal consequences, even jail, if they don’t know these confusing definitions and regulations. Therefore this ought to be be mandatory elementary school subject.

Human-Stupidity has repeatedly, assailed the tendency in modern law, incited by feminism, to "rape" and manipulate language, to use inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory, emotive language to try to foster a hidden agenda. 

Due to feminist zeal to vilify consensual lovers of adolescent women, we belittle the true suffering of victims of forcible rape victims.

Human-Stupidity thinks it it truly offensive to the underage victims of real forcible violent rape to equate their suffering to the the "suffering" of willing participants in sex, to equate their resistance and unequivocal non-consent to the voluntary though legally invalid consent, or to the suddenly withdrawn consent in a "six second rape".

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  When spoken by a minor under the age of consent, then by this definition, the following absurd equality holds.

"I love you, please make love to me"

=
(is equal to)

"NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone"
lovey-dovey-feeling

=

rape-ducks

 

Both statements above are non-consent of rape-victims, in case the birds are under the age of consent.

 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?” »
Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?
» continues here »

Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny in birds & human meddling in other people’s sexuality

Why do we, in the land of the free, have a prohibition of polygyny, a victimless crime? Why does the law restrict people’s freedom needlessly? Why do consenting adults have many legal restrictions to their sexual liberty? Teenage sexuality is full of legal problems (Consult a lawyer before playing doctor. Perverse sex laws traumatize children).  

Why do we feel a compulsion to meddle in other peoples freedom to form whatever form of marriage or sexual relationship they might want to engage in?

Many women would rather be the second (or fifth) wife of an attractive, rich, powerful man like  Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt, then the first  and only wife of boring, fat, jobless, broke alcoholic Joe Bloke in a Detroit ghetto.  Even just being Tiger’s mistress is much more exciting then Joe Bloke. Why does our law restrict the liberty of these women, and of Tiger Woods?

Repression of other people’s sexuality is in the reproductive interest  of older married women, of unattractive men. Even vor the successful alpha male it is advantagous to repress sexuality in others,  while hypocritically pursuing his own promiscuous sexuality (remember Eliot Spitzer?). 

In this post we show that evolutionary theory suggests evolution has created mental modules in our brains to repress sexuality in others,  The gut feelings caused by these modules get rationalized into theories that give rise to repressive legislation.

Polygyny in birds

When good males are scarce, a female bird may prefer to become the second mate of a higher quality male with a bigger territory.



Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748

(all quotes are from Kurzban’s book. This book is a must-read to really understand this topic here)
  • mating pattern of certain bird species illustrates what’s known as the "polygyny threshold model," which has to do with how female birds choose a mate in certain complex environments. […]

  • Is it better to be the only mate of a poorer male or share a better one?
  • I [a female bird]  can either nest with one of the remaining single – but lower quality- males, or I can nest with a [better high quality] male who is already paired, becoming the second female on his [bigger and better] patch. […]

  • When the payoff to being the second female on a patch is greater then the payoff to being the only mate of an inferior male, there will be polygyny. (Kurzban, pg. 208)

 

Morality for the birds?

To better understand how evolution could have formed modules for anti-polygyny morality, Kurzban analyzes a hypothetical bird population where moral rules prohibit polygyny.  He asks

Which birds stand to gain reproductive advantage when polygyny is prohibited?
  1. "Clearly, female birds already paired with the best male mates will do better. Their mates won’t be able to acquire secondary females whose offspring would compete for the man’s resources." (Kurzban, p 209). Women married with good males have reasons to be feminists. Hillary Clinton only loses if hubby Bill gets entangled with interns. In contrast, Monica Lewinsky probably would have fared very well as Bill Clinton’s second or even fifth wife.
  2. "There’s a natural alliance between monogamously mated females and low quality males because they both gain by enforced monogamy". "low-quality males benefit, since they now might get mates who would otherwise wind up as secondary mates of high-quality males" (Kurzban, p.) In a polygynous animal, primate, or human societies, many low-quality get no wives and no offspring at all. "Low quality males would have a deep, abiding, even crucial interest in rules that force everyone into monogamy" (Kurzban, p 213). Remember, evolution selected for mental modules that gave us reproductive advantage in the EEA, in small groups of hunter-gatherers. It seems that for low quality males, monogamy is the only chance to get a wife, rear  offspring and thus have reproductive success!  Low quality males that successfully prevent the high quality males from monopolizing multiple females would have considerably more offspring then tolerant open minded men who would remain empty handed while the high quality males would get all the females.
  3. Almost all males "benefit from all other males being monogamous, even if they themselves are not [monogamous]? […] "it’s best to constrain others’ sexual behavior. We’re all in favor of moral rule that prevent others from doing things that harm our own interests, but it is to our advantage to not obey our own rule. 
  4. High quality alpha males can profit from imposing monogamy  on other males.  Powerful males have a better chance to remain unpunished if they violate these rules (at least in birds with no feminist dominated court system)
  5. The losers of polygyny prohibition are un-paired females who have to settle for a lower quality male (‘a loser’)  because they are deprived of the freedom to choose to be wife #2 of a high quality male (with better genes, bigger territory, and more resources). 
  6. The other losers  of enforced monogamy are the "cads" the sexy good looking promiscuous players. They are attractive to women for having good genes, but they can’t win the battle over who brings the most worms. "Without promiscuity, sexy males can’t make the most of what they’ve got." (Kurzban, p. 211). 
  7. "Dads, however, win if the sexy males can’t be promiscuous. (They also benefit from keeping their females at home, rather than searching for the good-gene cads)"  (p 211) "Dads" are mated male birds that invest in their family and bring home worms for their kids.
We have an "interfere in other people’s private sex life" mental module.

"Humans are extremely social, and our survival and reproduction are determined in large part by how well we navigate the social world. Given this, it’s reasonable to expect that our minds are designed to compete fiercely-if not subtly- for the benefits in the social world: the best mates, the best friends, membership in the best groups, and so on. The outcomes of these competitions would have had massive effects on reproductive success over the course of human evolution."

So birds, mammals, and humans that increase their reproductive success by restricting other people’s sexual access will out-compete the democratic, personal-liberty-respecting tolerant liberal individuals.

We will post more about Kurzban’s theory of the modular mind, and the evolutionary advantages of internal inconsistency, self-deception, hypocrisy to explain this further. But to get a deep understanding one probably needs to read evolutionary literature

  • Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List | Human-Stupidity
  • Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite (Robert Kurzban) |Human-Stupidity book review
  • Social Evolution by Robert Trivers $40.00 080538507X  (Amazon)

     

    Humans have "moralistic modules designed to favor rules that promote their fitness interests".

    "The hypothetical birds would vote for policies that prevent others from engaging in sex outside mateships and anything else that goes along with promiscuity. "they probably would not know why they were opposed to these practices. Their decision would be based on the output of certain modules designed to limit other people’s promiscuity.  They would be insensitive to arguments about freedom and individual choice, and unaware of being inconsistent. They would probably rationalize this as being ‘pro-family", pro-life. Their resistance against abortion might be based in the desire to punish the females for having sex, and not in the desire to save embryos or in theories about the beginning of life."  (Kurzban)

    "They might be opposed to abortion -the availability of which by reducing the costs of sex, might well be linked to promiscuity" (Kurzban)

    Feminist anti-promiscuity sex laws are also in the reproductive interest of most (hypocritical) males

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny in birds & human meddling in other people’s sexuality” »
    Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny …
    » continues here »

  • Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago

    Redefining rape: all feminists are up in arms. Feminists re-defined rape 30 years ago, and now republicans want to re-re-redefine rape to the original definition. The definition "rape" had since the old Romans and Greek before Christ was born. 

    This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.
    (The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape)

    And when being too young for sex were not called "rape" either, kissing a minor was not called rape either. In the old times, when language still had its own precise terminology, like "indecent act with a minor". And when the age of consent was lower, so 17 year olds enjoying sex were not "rape victims". As ‘Whoppie Goldberg called it "it was not real rape-rape".

    Human-Stupidity Analysis

    We are language semantics freaks: we don’t like that one word defines 2 different things. Not every killing is murder, and not every problematic sex act is rape.

    Readers might disagree, if a irresponsible teen who got herself pregnant should get free abortion. Or if it is better to get an, even undeserved, abortion then the prospect of an immature poor mother traumatizing a baby. Or one might wonder why the immature teen girl that got pregnant from an immature teen boy the same age was not statutorily raped and thus does not deserve a free abortion.   But if she had a relationship with a more sensible, responsible, mature man, then she was statutorily raped and deserves a free abortion.

     

    The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape

    Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law. […]

    Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.[…]

    "This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.[..]

    Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago” »
    Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had…
    » continues here »

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

    The United Nations manipulated the definition of "child" on purpose! So child protection laws could be extended to adolescent youth without need to be voted again. Human-Stupidity.com found the smoking gun. Proof is on the United Nations web site.

    Q – What does the UN mean by "youth," and
    how does this definition differ from that given to children?

    The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines ‘youth’, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years,[…]  By that definition, therefore, children are those persons under the age of 14.
    It is, however, worth noting that Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines ‘children’ as persons up to the age of 18. This was intentional, as it was hoped that the Convention would provide protection and rights to as large an age-group as possible and because there was no similar United Nations Convention on the Rights of Youth. (www.UN.org)

    The United Nations web site confesses, expressis verbis, that the language confusion was created so that childhood laws could be transferred to adolescents, without undergoing scrutiny and without needing to be voted for. The United Nations, on their own website, admit that this age definition was made for manipulative purposes, and in contradiction of  their own age definitions elsewhere.

    "Seduction of an adolescent" or "unlawful sex with a 17-year-old" does not sound dramatic enough. It is easier to get harsh laws against "child rapists". Equally, it is easier to convict for "child pornography" then for possession of tasteful "nude photos of a 17 year old".  Just manipulate the language to manipulate the masses! And government, press, judges, jury.

    For the past 2000 years, before feminists took over the United Nations,

    • a child was a person under 12 or 14 years of age
    • pornography was depiction explicit sexual activity
    • rape was violent forceful sexual penetration against a resisting victim
    • consent was, well, consent. Saying yes. Independent of age.

    Is it not strange that all these terms were diluted to create confusion?

    We will focus on how the United Nations manipulated the definition of "Child" in order to force the world to ratify child protection laws for adolescent youths.

    "If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol"

    "If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol" read the sign at the supermarket checkout. For the supermarket cashier, it is "Better be safe then sorry."

    Nobody goes to jail for 15 years for selling alcohol to someone slightly underage.  So to be safe,

    "If S/he looks under 35 years of age, don’t propose sex, nor kissing, nor possess nude photos of her/him

    Most people are unaware: Age of consent  laws and "child" porn laws don’t just scare people away from "underage" persons.

    To be on the safe side, one should not possess porn with anyone that looks under 25 or 30, and not try to get involved romantically with anyone that looks under 30.

    "Eschew obfuscation"  (avoid being unclear)!

    Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes English 101. Science and law also try to get clear and concise definitions.

    To foster the political goal of curbing adolescent sexuality and erotic depictions, the United Nations leads the world into obfuscation.

    Due to United Nations influence,
    our language lost the capacity to differentiate between totally different situations

    ,,,people assume that a person labeled with possession of CP [child p ornography] automatically is looking at pictures of 4 yr olds having sex with adults etc…when the law actually is worded to where you could have a clothed picture of a 16yr old female and have it be considered CP…  prisontalk.com

     

     
    The following are all the same now.

    2 year olds, 7 year olds, 11 year old children

    =

    15 y or 17 year old adolescent youth.

    =

    All above are "Children"

     

     

    As a result of United Nations language manipulation, the following are the same:

    Indecently fondling a 17 year old 
    fully dressed long term girlfriend, with her consent

    = forceful non-consenting violent injury causing rape of a kidnapped 4 year old
    Both above are "child rape". "Non-consensual" sex.
    And the depictions of both are the same. Child Pornography.

    We think this is demagogic. unscientific. Purposeful misleading.  Disgusting.

    You did not understand that this is the same? click on "more" below and we will show you why, step by step

    Furthermore we will also use medical science and developmental psychology to scientifically define "child" and the phases of childhood.  In a subsequent post, later, we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition” »
    17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses politic…
    » continues here »

    Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?

    An intelligent, fully conscious young man committed rape without knowing he was raping. He had no clue he was raping. How can you rape while thinking you are not raping? Do you know the answer?

    Man unknowingly rapes girl because she deceived him.
    Man deceived by girl into unknowingly raping her.

    The answer is:

    Man who had sex with girl, 12, admits rape but is freed after woman judge says he was ‘duped’ into thinking she was 19

    A barman who admitted having sex with a 12-year-old girl walked free from court after convincing a judge she had tricked him into believing she was an adult.

    Michael Graham, 25, met the girl through a social networking website on which she had posted pictures of herself and described herself as a 19-year-old student and single mother who enjoyed drinking and having sex.

    The girl was inundated with offers from men, but only replied to Graham because he was the best looking, Leeds Crown Court was told.

    You guessed wrong? you still haven’t gotten it: consensual sex can be rape. If a 12 or 15 year old happily hops into your bed, or if you drag her into the bushes and hold a knife to her throat, in both cases you commit the same crime “rape”.

    This is a special case of “rape by deception”. The “rapist” was deceived.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?” »
    Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing…
    » continues here »

    “Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

      

    “However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography 

    We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt

    merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites. 

    Vodoo logic

    Child porn Voodoo logic

    voodoo-doll-pinYou stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.
    The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle.
    Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0’s and 1’s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt.
     

    Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism

    exhusband-vodoo-doll While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ”
    Dude” commenting at  
    Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

    VoodooDoll Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless! 

    Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. […] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered: 

    Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?

    So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:

    Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.    Examining the Effects of Child Pornography 

    We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP

    Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

    But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment 

    “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.” 

    Are you mad? 

    Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’. (“Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield “commenting on Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

    Hence 

    one could just legalise ownership [of child porn] and solve the problem in one fell swoop 

    Certainly our mind gets victimized by repeated exposure to insane voodo logic 

    Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

    This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

    Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt

    Australian Law Makers’ logic

    Analogy #1

    Analogy #2

    Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]  Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia) Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet 
     

    • infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams
    • children suffering serious injuries in accidents
    • children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing

    raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. 

    Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of  depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned.  It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]   

      

    Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

    We understand your rage

    We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies 

    1. confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
      You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died
    2. Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12” and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.

      

    Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?

      

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ““Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws” »
    “Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo…
    » continues here »