Re: for some definition of paedophile...
> Congratulations - you just associated BDSM with paedophilia. And a million kinky people who'd been trying to disassociate their interests from real world abuse and harming of children place their faces in their palms once more.
Is paedophilia in the strictest sense something that should be against the law?
As long as it doesn't involve the abuse of children, why would it ever be deemed illegal?
This is the real problem with having laws that are not centred squarely on the behaviour that is deemed antisocial, we have comments like this.
If a person likes to look at children and drawings/photographs of children in the privacy of their own home to gain sexual arousal and as long as no child abuse is ever committed, then where is the crime? Just because *you* think it is wrong doesn't mean that it is for everyone else.
Exactly the same arguments used to be trotted out about homosexuality: "I think sex with a guy is gross, so there should be a law against it." It makes just as much sense in that situation as it does here.
Dealing with child abuse is a hard problem to solve. Making laws about peripheral activities that don't involve children directly is evading the hard question about what we do about the abuse of children (and of anyone else for that matter.)
Abusing children is already against the law and has been for decades and the penalties are stiff. Yet we *still* have child abuse. Criminalising *other* people not abusing children is not going to solve this problem.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
