So the question I have it this: Does Reddit have some sort of powerful magnetic attraction to the pedophiles and pedophile defenders of the world, or is pedophilia and/or pedophile defense simply endemic amongst the young male tech geek demographic that’s so heavily overrepresented on Reddit?
This is a question that naturally sprung to my mind after reading a couple of recent posts in ShitRedditSays, documenting Reddit’s strange sympathy with the child porn enthusiasts of the world. A woman stands up on Reddit and declares herself a feminist? She’s a “bad person,” a “female supremacist,” an “utter piece of shit.” A man is jailed for possession of child porn? He’s being unjustly persecuted for a “victimless crime.”
Fxexular on ShitRedditSays has assembled a roundup of some the most disturbing comments in a thread devoted to the aforementioned man jailed for possession of CP. Amongst his finds:
Heavily upvoted comments comparing viewing of child porn to smoking weed and playing Grand Theft Auto.
A comment with 15 upvotes suggesting that the perp should only get “a stiff fine and a few weeks of community service … for a crime the judge himself probably committed half a dozen times on any given weekend.”
A comment with nearly two dozen upvotes lamenting that the child porn possessor is going to have his “life ruined over socially non-normative pictures. … this is a predictable outcome of a corrupt government which is obsessed with its own power.”
But these are just the tip of the pedo-defense iceberg. Take a look at the thread itself, where you will also find heavily upvoted comments from Redditors comparing the “persecution” of pedophiles to past persecution of gays and witches; an unintentionally ironic comment lamenting the cruel treatment of a perp who is “only 26” years old; and a comment making perhaps the strangest argument I think I may have ever seen anywhere about anything:
My core problem here, as a computer scientist, is that any photo he had is really a bunch of zeros and ones… which for anyone who is at all familiar with binary, is a number. Basically, by outlawing the storage of some form of data, we have said that it is illegal be in possession of certain numbers. Yes, these might be huge numbers that you don’t encounter in your daily life, but they are still simply numbers.
In a different thread on the same case, another Redditor gets 75 upvotes for comparing child-porn-possessing pedophiles with African-Americans in the era of the Civil Rights movement. Here’s the comment itself; here’s the ShitRedditSays thread discussing it. And here, for good measure, is the same commenter offering a Redditor who’s confessed to molesting his sister advice on how best to avoid prosecution.
Meanwhile, in an unrelated thread in Reddit’s Videos subreddit, pedophile (sorry, ephebophile) Redditors mount an all-out attack on a girl who had the temerity to complain about skeevy Redditors masturbating to pictures of herself she put in a private album on the internet when she was 14.
In ShitRedditSays, jamie11 collects together some of the creepiest comments, including these:
“Fuck yea she is developed AND judging by her smug smile, she is loving every second of this. Sure she says “OMG, so creepy herp derp” but in reality it is kind of a big EGO boost. EDIT: in b4 misogyny accusations!” [+7]
“She is an attention whore. She is really dumb. She will probably ultimately profit from this in the model/porn/coors girl industry.”[+10]
“Shes much hotter when shes quiet.” [+32]
The numbers in brackets indicate the numbers of upvotes.
Again, tip of the iceberg.
EDITED TO ADD: I hadn’t noticed before, but r/mensrights has its own discussion of the child porn case. It’s pretty much what you’d expect: Possessing child porn is just a “thought crime” that doesn’t hurt anyone.
The creepiest fellow of the lot is probably logrusmage, who offers this defense of the child porn possessors of the world:
consider that a majority of “kiddy porn” are pictures of sexually mature females taken by said females for boyfriends that got leaked on the internet or via text, where the female happens to be under the age of consent.
When someone points out that, um, the fact that these pictures are “leaked” means that the subjects of said pictures didn’t consent to them being put online (and, also, they are below the age of consent), logrusmage offers this rebuttal:
Consent is not needed for something that does not directly effect someone. Like looking at them. … Looking at a picture of someone does not require their consent.
Presumably he’d be fine if someone secretly filmed him picking his nose while taking a crap and put it up on r/creepydudespickingnosesonthecrapper.
BTW, you can not rape the willing. By definition, that’s an oxymoron. Well, okay, as a legal FICTION, statutorily. But as a famous American WOMAN once said, that’s not really rape-rape, is it now?
And alas, passion has ever been contrary to reason.
“Race is permanent – people do not age out of their race.”
I agree. I was taught that race was a social construct. I never believed it though.
Whatever, survival sex is rape. It’s coercion: “have sex with me or you won’t get food.” Anyone who coerces survival sex from teens is a rapist.
Yes, you can rape the willing. For instance, if the willing had profound mental disabilities, that is rape.
Whatever managed to speak a truth, though without seeing the irony: And alas, passion has ever been contrary to reason.
I have to go to work, but, for the record, I disagree with Whatever, in all particulars. I think statutory rape is a good law, and that someone who cannot give meaningful consent is unable to be, in any real way, willing.
If I “agree” to something which I don’t know will harm me, I cannot be said to have given real consent, etc.
But we’ve already seen Whatever saying child rape is fitting and proper, so it’s not as if we have any real question as to his desires/intent/opinion.
“Whatever, survival sex is rape. It’s coercion: “have sex with me or you won’t get food.” Anyone who coerces survival sex from teens is a rapist.”
You know, this may apply if the older person demanding sex has the younger person trapped in a dungeon, but if the older person is just a random passer-by and the younger person is a beggar? The passer-by has no obligation whatsoever to give food for free, do they? What’s wrong with quid pro quo? That’s not coercion. Ex. Truckers and “lot lizards”.
“If I “agree” to something which I don’t know will harm me, I cannot be said to have given real consent, etc.”
Hello?! This is the 21st century and KIDS ALREADY HAVE THE INTERNET (AND CABLE TV), remember?! How can they not know? Or rather, can they ALL not know?!
“Yes, you can rape the willing. For instance, if the willing had profound mental disabilities, that is rape.”
Now, that is just plain sad. Are the people cursed to be born with single-digit IQ or autism or what-have-you, through no fault of their own at all, never to experience the (albeit overrated) joys of sex? They need to get laid too, you know.
No, actually, it is coercion. If you don’t want to give a child food then by all means go along your way. But to prey on the desperation of a homeless child by demanding sex in exchange for something they need to survive is a morally bankrupt act. And it’s also rape.
Wow, Whatever has managed to come across even creepier than NWO at his most creeptastic. I didn’t think that was possible.
“then by all means go along your way.”
“is a morally bankrupt act.”
So, fair-and-square barter is worse than abandoning a person to starvation? Lemme guess, you’re one of those far-left welfare statists, aren’t you? So much for capitalism then, eh?
Pecu, “If I “agree” to something which I don’t know will harm me, I cannot be said to have given real consent, etc.”
I agree. However then it gets grey. If sex with someone above the age of consent will harm someone below it, then I don’t see how having sex with another person who is also below the age of consent will be any less harmful.
My personal opinion on the matter, and one that is also conditioned by my culture, is that sex should wait until one is an adult in a committed relationship. Actually my culture says until one is married, but I’ve updated and revised that view. 😉
How exactly is having sex with someone who clearly doesn’t want to have sex but is desperate enough to consider doing so because the person offering food in exchange isn’t prepared to act like a morally upright individual “fair-and-square barter”?
I don’t often say this, but I really hope you’re trolling.
If there’s one thing that makes the free enterprise system work for so long, it’s ironically the fact that really is no free lunch. Gas, cash, or ass, nobody rides for free, as the saying goes. Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever did.
So explain the start of the universe then Whatever.
That’s sound like a funny story, I’d love to hear it!
I’d rather starve to death than have sex with most of the men in this country.
Old, ugly, thin lips or no lips at all. Even the celebs are like this.
Ew. Just ew.
I’d never be able to sprout a lady boner (yes the clit gets hard, but not for you).
That’s not barter, it’s extortion. It’s wrong. Duh. I second what Wetherby said, really really hope you don’t actually believe what you’re saying.
What? Is this supposed to be an insult?
Absolute nothingness is self-contradictory. Ergo, something just had to exist. And anyway, that’s too metaphysical a tangent for such an earthy topic.
So Whatever, was it gas, cash, or ass that started the universe?
“So Whatever, was it gas, cash, or ass that started the universe?”
Science says it was a gas.
How is it in any way extortion if the other party offered is free to take it or leave it? I mean, it’s not the fault of the offeror that the offeree is in that situation in the first place, is it? The party offering ain’t the cause of the problem, but a possible solution. Of course, there’s a price to be paid, equivalent exchange, but that’s only to be expected. Not everyone can afford to be charitable all the time.
“What? Is this supposed to be an insult?”
Oh, I forget, in the era of OWS, that’s probably a compliment nowadays, isn’t it?
NWO, sorry, I lost track of this conversation. Wikipedia talks about the normal conditions for child marriage under its child marriage page. I didn’t think about their other case, when women are considered a liability. But still, child marriage is not done because girls are sexually ready.
The hunter-gatherer stuff comes from Robert Kelly’s “The Foraging Spectrum”. I’ve got the 2007 paperback reprint, and the relevant chart is on page 246. The mean age at menarche is listed for four h-g groups (16.6, 15.1, 12 (which, based on other research I’ve done, is way low), and 17.1). The mean age at first birth is listed for nine societies, and they range from 18 to 23. I have a whole spreadsheet with more data somewhere, but it is, alas, not accessible right now. If you’re really interested, let me know, and I’ll post more, with more cites. The whole “women aren’t adults until their late teens, early twenties thing” – dammit, I forget which article I read that was talking specifically about that, and it’s probably in my office (I’m at home right now), so again, let me know if you really want me to hunt that down. However, it’s been written about many cultures that no one expects any of the kids (including boys) to start contributing more than they consume until they’re married, which is usually mid teens to early twenties for girls and about five years later for boys. Margaret Mead talked about the reluctance of girls to take on adult tasks in Coming of Age in Samoa.
Whatever, while the idea that men and women have vastly different reproductive strategies is sadly still accepted in the more traditional archaeological circles, I really don’t think it works for humans. Humans are cooperative breeders. Everyone in a hunter-gatherer band looks out for each other, and most of your band are not close relatives even. Men stick around and help care for all the kids. One h-g dude was asked by an anthropologist why the guys didn’t mind that the women weren’t monogamous – how did the guys know who their kids were? The h-g dude answered that it was really sad that westerners only cared about their own kids, because he and his fellow h-g dudes cared about all the children.
Moreover, the kind of guys your theory would guess would have the most extramarital affairs don’t. If the competition theory of reproduction was true for humans, the really great hunters should be screwing everyone in camp. They don’t. Also, the husbands of older, less fertile women should be more likely to have mistresses, while in fact they are less likely to. It looks like dudes really do care about kids.
But why does the solution have to be sexual? There are many, many other things that someone can legitimately do in exchange for food – and if “the party offering” isn’t prepared to consider any alternatives, they are most definitely the cause of the problem.
You mean free to take the offer or starve? That doesn’t sound much of a choice. In fact, it sounds like coercion. From wikipedia:
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.
What is your point? Also, you haven’t answered my question about the gas, cash, or ass and the start of the universe. Perhaps it was some combination of the three?
What I really genuinely don’t understand is why sex with someone who’s starving and frightened and deeply, deeply unwilling would be in any way pleasurable to anyone who wasn’t a complete moral bankrupt. Just how desperate do you have to be for sex to resort to an offer like that?
That’s quite a projector you have there. You do shows at the Omnidome?
And that’s not my logic, it’s your “logic” and your failure to understand even the basics of how laws work.
Reading comprehension, Fucker! Can you use it?!
Wetherby, I have no idea. It’s baffling. It seems like it comes from some kind of desire to hurt and humiliate someone else rather than just being desperate for sex.