Legal Catfishophile

[Wlfwnd91]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/parents...01#addNewCmmnt

If you're in CT then I expect you to read the article before making a post, so I'm not going to waste my time with a summary, and I'll get straight to the point.

I believe the police are taking the only action they can. None. And I completely agree with that. This discussion has come up several times, "Is it wrong if the fetish is expressed only in thought and not in action?" and things of that sort, and I bring it up here, because the situation now sets precedent.

What I'm asking all of you is this.. Do you believe the police should apprehend him for being an open pedophile, even though he (claims to have) never touched a child in any sexual way? If not, do you agree with the police or should they take other action? Possibly putting him on some sort of list, like the sex offender list, even though he's not a sex offender? Do you agree with his right to have and express this fetish as long as he doesn't harm any other human being in the process?

Basically, express your opinions. Many questions could be asked about the topic, just blurt whatever you feel.

I think what he's doing is perfectly fine. There's plenty of people who are turned on to the youthfulness of children, though I don't have a statistic and won't make an attempt at one, cause I don't have a source. We hear about only the perverts who make their move on the children, because those are the ones who are caught (most of the time).

One of the officers quoted, "Has he acted on it? I can't say. But I've been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one [a pedophile] who has not."

This is an incredible stereotype, and people will take it for word because.. well.. he's a cop, right? Here's the thing though, is that ALL he sees are the pedophiles who come in after having acted on it, not the world of those who simply live it in their own mind.

That's my opinion, as more topics are brought up I'll make sure to give my point of view. Discuss.

[evilcowgod]

Originally Posted by Wlfwnd91

first post

Well, I think it should be OK to be a pedophile, just as long as (assuming he has any) the child porn is NOT real, for example, lolita or straight shota or some variation of that.

Just as long as he stays the hell away from children, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[AquaTeen]

Originally Posted by evilcowgod

Well, I think it should be OK to be a pedophile, just as long as (assuming he has any) the child porn is NOT real, for example, lolita or straight shota or some variation of that.

Just as long as he stays the hell away from children, I don't see anything wrong with it.

It's never a good thing to be a pedophile. It's a mark of shame because you did something sexual to a child.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by AquaTeen

It's never a good thing to be a pedophile. It's a mark of shame because you did something sexual to a child.

The thread was about a guy who never did anything sexual to a child. A guy just like you, but with sexy thoughts about children.

Think of all the thoughts you've ever had in your life. Surely you've thought of something illegal or immoral. Surely your beliefs run counter to the law in some area. Maybe even counter to public moral opinion. If you never acted on these beliefs, should you be locked up?

[devonin]

He's done nothing illegal, shows every sign of continuing to do nothing illegal, and to even put him under survaillance is just a flat out violation of his rights.

From what the article describes, this seems like even less of an objectionable behavior than something like two consenting adults acting out pedophelia fantasies in a chatroom.

About the only thing he could be doing at all wrong is posting pictures of people without their permission. If he stopped posting photos of real girls, or only posted publically available photos, there would be no justification at all to do anything to him.

I completely understand the hesitance of mothers around him, the man does explicitly state that he has sexual attraction towards young girls, but being creepy isn't against the law.

[arelik]

All he does is look at children right? Then there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like he's hurting them with his eyesight. People are freaking out because they expect a pedophile to be some sort of sex maniac who only thinks about abducting and having sex with kids. They don't realize that pedophiles can be normal people like anyone else (without considering their preference for children).
Edit: For people who didn't vote, here is the poll on that page.

Do you think Jack McClellan poses a threat to kids?
Yes 95%
No 5%

I can't believe so many people think that way simply because he's a pedophile and not afraid to say it.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by arelik

Do you think Jack McClellan poses a threat to kids?
Yes 95%
No 5%

I can't believe so many people think that way simply because he's a pedophile and not afraid to say it.

Uh, he's a pedophile. He IS a threat to kids.

It's just that he's done nothing illegal, and the thought police can't arrest him.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[wickedawesomeful]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Uh, he's a pedophile. He IS a threat to kids.

It's just that he's done nothing illegal, and the thought police can't arrest him.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

This is another gigantic stereotype. Just because he is turned on by the youthfulness of children does NOT mean he is a threat to kids. If he has the self control to not act on his pedophilia, he is no threat to children at all. Lots of people are turned on by extreme youth, it's one of the most common fetishes out there. People have their sexual partners do their hair in pigtails or dress like a schoolgirl because it makes them seem younger; It is, in essence, pedophilia. Don't lump the extreme pedophiles who go out and rape children in with those who have a handle on their fetish.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by wickedawesomeful

This is another gigantic stereotype. Just because he is turned on by the youthfulness of children does NOT mean he is a threat to kids. If he has the self control to not act on his pedophilia, he is no threat to children at all. Lots of people are turned on by extreme youth, it's one of the most common fetishes out there. People have their sexual partners do their hair in pigtails or dress like a schoolgirl because it makes them seem younger; It is, in essence, pedophilia. Don't lump the extreme pedophiles who go out and rape children in with those who have a handle on their fetish.

He may not be an immediate danger to kids, but he's still very much a threat to them. I chose my words carefully.

And if you really think that a person who readily admits that he trolls for children is not a threat to kids, well, I feel sorry for your kids.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[wickedawesomeful]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

He may not be an immediate [i]danger[/b] to kids, but he's still very much a threat to them. I chose my words carefully.

And if you really think that a person who readily admits that he trolls for children is not a threat to kids, well, I feel sorry for your kids.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

How exactly is he a threat to the children if all he's doing is looking at them? You'll have to clarify for me, I can't remember someone ever being even slightly injured because someone looked at them.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

He may not be an immediate [i]danger[/b] to kids, but he's still very much a threat to them. I chose my words carefully.

And if you really think that a person who readily admits that he trolls for children is not a threat to kids, well, I feel sorry for your kids.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

From thesaurus.reference.com:

Originally Posted by Thesaurus.com

Main Entry: danger
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: hazard
Synonyms: crisis, double trouble*, dynamite, emergency, endangerment, exigency, exposure, hot potato*, insecurity, instability, jeopardy, menace, peril, pitfall, possibility, precariousness, precipice, probability, risk, risky business*, slipperiness, storm, storm clouds, thin ice*, threat, uncertainty, venture, vulnerability
Antonyms: safety, security

Note that threat and danger are synonyms.

I do have some things I want to say, but I can't word them well at all. If I can figure something out, I'll post it.

[MarisaKirisame]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

danger
You saw nothing. <_<

hehe

Sorry man, I had to.

Back on topic, I think the police are overreacting wayyyyy too much on this. Maybe they might want to start a point in that he probably shouldn't be so open about being a pedo and such, but the fact that he just has a sexual preference is, well, just that and nothing more.

But really, I get that pedos can ruin lives and such, and I get that it's certainly at least somewhat of a threat, but I wouldn't say it's enough to make a big deal of it.

I see taking away someone's right to be around kids to be pretty harsh, even if the person has a sexual attraction to them. I mean, there are many, MANY people who don't even admit being a pedo, still hang around kids, and never commit any act, just have a sexual desire. Kids are so lively and such, they make most people happy. Should we really just take that right to see kids away from someone just because we're afraid they might have sex with one of 'em even though they have never done so thus far(or at least, no one has proven it to be done thus far)?

I mean, and this is a question for everyone, if you had a sexual attraction to someone which could cause legal problems(if you were to have sex with them), would you really try to get them to have sex with you, even if it could mean quite a long time in jail and a permanent marking on your name that wouldn't look too good?

Probably tough to imagine, but try to.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

He may not be an immediate danger to kids, but he's still very much a threat to them. I chose my words carefully.

And if you really think that a person who readily admits that he trolls for children is not a threat to kids, well, I feel sorry for your kids.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Honestly i think it is the same as if a man said, "I love having sex with women", does that mean he is suddenly going to go out and rape someone? Most likely not.

From what i can gather, i think that the police do the honorable thing by doing nothing because anyone who desires virtually anything can be a threat to it if their thoughts get too extreme. Just because i desire money doesnt mean im going to rob a bank. However, this entire discussion/debate is based off of circumstantial evidence and both sides cannot say for sure that he will either remain a law abiding citizen or if he will turn for the worst and act on his thoughts. Just keep in mind though that just because someone says something, it doesnt mean they mean/will do it, it can be taken as any concept you please (a call for help, a heat-of-the-moment statement, etc).

As for the matter of promoting such illegal actions i think its deplorable to say the least. If he actually says anything or provides information to aid in someone committing a crime then i believe he should be punished.

Btw, i didnt read the actual article because for some reason it would not let me go there, i clicked the link and tried copying and pasting it but to no avail... So if you could give me an easier way to get there it would be much appreciated.

[evilcowgod]

lmao catfishophile.

At any rate, he's no threat to children. At all. Maybe one day he'll decide to go out and rape some kid, but he'll cross that bridge when he comes to it. The police are violating is (implied) right to privacy by videotaping every move he makes, thats just stupid.

[devonin]

And given the longstanding tradition of pedarasty in the ancient world, it isn't like this is some new phenomenon.

[Wlfwnd91]

Devonin, I agree completely, however most people don't understand ancient world history, and think that pedophilia is and should remain wrong and condemned. I believe the ACT of pedophilia should be condemned, but as you mentioned, there's no law against being a creep, and I must say I respect the law in holding to the constitution.

I do know that keeping him under surveillance is a violation of rights, however he did bring it upon himself. It's sort of the same way you can't go saying, "I'd so love to shoot up a bank now." and expect to not be under constant watch. But, many parents want him locked up just for admitting it. The other poll also showed, a majority disagree with how the police are handling the situation. And if you read the comments, a lot of them say, "He's a disgrace, he's not human, he's not an animal, he's a spawn of hell! He's a disgusting creep that should be shot!"

I do, also, agree with the fact that it's pretty understandable for parents to be creeped out around him. I would be if I were a parent. But, to say he should be shot is stupid.

[ShadowBlink]

I would have to say that, legally, he is not committing any wrongs.
However, I also find that he IS inciting other pedophiles to do sexual assaults. He has a website with seemingly harmless child pictures, but he also gives names and places of where to get children. If anything else, he should be forced to stop these actions as they may start an actual real crime. But how can they stop him?

[arelik]

Uh, he's a pedophile. He IS a threat to kids.

It's just that he's done nothing illegal, and the thought police can't arrest him.

Like I said, being a pedophile doesn't mean the person will do something to a child. It's prejudice. In this particular case, the guy would have to be crazy to even attempt doing something to a kid because he's almost constantly being watched.

[devonin]

And if you read the comments, a lot of them say, "He's a disgrace, he's not human, he's not an animal, he's a spawn of hell! He's a disgusting creep that should be shot!"

If they say that thinking about pedophilia makes him a pedophile, aren't they, by their own logic, now murderers?

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by devonin

If they say that thinking about pedophilia makes him a pedophile, aren't they, by their own logic, now murderers?

Yes, but, keep in mind, people rarely think about what they're saying. They believe that their views are the right ones, despite how misguided.

I think it's true that he should stop telling other pedophiles great "trolling areas" or things of that nature, because it is provoking the ones that don't have control to commit acts. It's like someone posting a blog saying "This store would be great to rob, because of these reasons." well, even if this person is only saying it because robberies and theft interest him (not because he wishes to do it) it has the possibility of making other people attempt the act.

But, this could go to media as well. Would a movie like "Die Hard", which revolves around terrorism, PROMOTE terrorism? Should we censor that simply for the few that could possibly be tempted to act on the idea? Should we completely outlaw fetish fantasy porn (fake rape or S&M, things of that nature) simply because some twisted **** could decide to take it to the next level?