They have a moderator who goes by the name of Lensman...

First of all, no... I have never heard of him or his book. I couldn't find all whole lot of info on him or the book you speak of. Bringing up a single book does NOT negate my argument. Do you realize how many pedos are out there? More than enough to sell "many thousands of copies." Hmm... have you read this book?

Even though I don't think this is okay, there is still a HUGE difference in consentual underage sex acts... and babies, toddlers and young children being forcefully ass raped and throat fucked.

Look at those titles I quoted... a collection of stories about abused and raped babies and children. Who, other than pedos would read one of, or the collection of, these stories? How 'bout any of these stories, did you read any of them?

Nice try, but YOUR argument doesn't work for me.

I don't think it's a waste of time or resources.

Nail the fuckers who are writing and reading this sick crap, or at least track them, as most of them have probably already nailed an innocent child. Do you not agree that the people who read this shit have a higher probability of actually committing the crime? They are reading these stories because it gets them off, they are already predisposed to wanting to fuck kids... these stories are just fanning the flame or providing whack off material until they can find another kid to fuck.

With every ounce of my being, I believe that the only people who would read or write these stories are full blown pedos or closet pedos, who will begin with the fantasy of reading these fucked up stories. Why fuel their fire. If one of these stories inspires just one of these closet pedos to go out and fuck a child, don't you think that's one too many?

sometimes i cant believe what i actually read around here from people who claim to be in the adult industry.

you people are witch burners.

The speech you have to protect is the speech that offends you the most. Im against cp but going after a site for stories thats thought crimes and thats a very slippery slope you dont want to go down. I think this was the charge to get in the door ,it will be interesting if other charges come up.

WTF? Because I "claim" to be in the adult industry, I should think it's okay to condone child porn?

Okay, you got me, I'm just a surfer. :eatme

I know.

Because you think people who read stories or look at pictures go and do what the pictures or story was about in real life.

It sounds ridiculous. And its no different than people that burned Alice Cooper records in the 60s. Most of the time i am convinced the people who scream the loudest in these threads have the most to hide.

Amazing.

The fact that you are ignorant of twentieth century Flemmish literature does not mean much. If you couldn't find a whole lot of info on him, that merely shows you aren't a good searcher, since a simple Google search on his name delivers well over half a million results.

Bringing up a single book as an example does in fact negate your argument, because it shows that there is no clear line between "obscene porn stories" and literature.

So you are ok with stories about fucking, say, a consenting 8 year old but when there's force inforced, it's over the line? That just further goes to show that the line you wish to draw is completely arbitrary, and even somewhat ridiculous.

So, with that, are you saying that pics of CP should be legal?
Pedos are NOT wired like most people. MOST people don't go out and act on what they see or read, but pedos are different.


And what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Because I wish to speak out about pedos, I have something to hide? You sir, are a dumbass. :321GFY

Pics are bad, ofcourse, because of what happens to create them. That's the reason they shouldn't be legal, obviously.

As for how pedos are "wired" - what exactly would you know about that? I am fairly certain that you are not a psychiatrist specialized in the subject, but rather an ignoramus speculating based on an unholy combination of media hype, "common sense", unbalanced reporting and outrage at the subject matter, perhaps combined with some small, incoherent pieces of popular science ripped out of their appropriate context.

Oh Lord, I'm a retard because I don't know my 20th century Flemmish literature. Give me a fuckin' break. Let me bow down to you now, since you know something about it. Sorry, I didn't waste my time in that area of study... I found more useful things to learn.

I'm not a "good searcher" either. Yep, I googled it but really didn't want to spend the time weeding through it to defend myself against a pro-pedo.

And NO, I'm not okay with consenting 8 year olds, you fucking moron. Go back and read it again, you and your high falootin' Flemmish lit brain didn't comprehend my simple English.

the logic behind some of these replies. If i was saying that, I would have said that. No, what i said was: Stories and images of rape do not make people rape, hence them being legal

I wont explain the concept of "Good Guy Badges" - but its a fact "Rape Counselors" can be rapists too.

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/goodguy_badge.html

You book Burners scare me and thats about all i have to say. Note: no name calling. You should try it.

You think pedo brains are wired normally? That would make you either an "ignoramus" or a pedo.

You called me a witch burner, book burner and implied I have something to hide because I'm speaking out on this issue, calling me a pedo in a 'round about way. I'm not beating around the bush, I'm just calling it like I see it. So your Note is wrong.

Don't fucking insinuate that I'm a pedo because I'm passionate about the topic. It's called "Mother's rage."

I didn't call you a retard, I said you were ignorant of twentieth century Flemmish literature. That isn't an insult, it is a fact, one that I posted in response to you saying that you "couldn't find a whole lot of info on him" (which now seems to be "didn't want to") and after that making the ridiculous implication that paedophiles might in fact be the ones responsible for the sales of the book.


Now, you don't think literature containing such sex acts is ok? In that case, do you believe literature containing it should be banned?

Sounds shocking. Here .. lemme submerge you with political horseshit
 

http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_288.html
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/fbi/index.php
http://p2p.weblogsinc.com/entry/8031595493861249/
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...idporn_pr.html
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13430959
http://www.iwar.org.uk/pipermail/inf...ne/000289.html
http://www.channel3000.com/news/2846265/detail.html
http://www.avnonline.com/articles/242607.html
http://news.zdnet.com/5208-1009-0.ht...122&st art=-1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sathya.../message/27999
http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.2/aid.63848/column.htm
http://headlines.agapepress.org/arch...fa/112005c.asp
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14869
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...NOnline_Column
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/994471
http://www.afa.net/pornography/Defau...=2005&m=1&id=9
http://www.afa.net/pornography/Defau...=2005&m=5&id=9
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues.../cityside.html
http://www.nhpr.org/aggregator/sources/2?page=3
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?m=20050921
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles...p?entry=122434
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,54857,00.html
http://www.venekera.co.zw/GuidedbyLi.../Guided066.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/
http://www.keepmedia.com/Search.do?c...on&extID=10026
http://weirdassshit.com/
http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5876075.html
http://www.crime-research.org/news/16.01.2005/902/

you know.. and while im at it, only tyrants and criminals fear honest armed citizens. (thats all.)

First of all, having dabbled a bit in philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence and philosophy of consciousness for the past few years, I am rather surprised to see someone of such limited mental abilities as yours come up with the end-all theory of consciousness, psychology and behaviour - and even more surprised am I that the conclusion is that all behaviour and mental states stem from the brain being "wired", and either "normally" or "abnormally" at that.

Secondly, inferring that paedophiles go out and rape from the fact that they are attracted to children is about as scientifically sound as inferring that they rob grocery stores from the fact that they eat food.

And yes, this time I did call you a retard.

No, just because you were born that way and don't try to use your brain.

I know you didn't call me a retard. You came off as holier than thou, so I included the word to make you feel even better about yourself.

Since you're trying to pick me apart, let me clarify my googling. Yes, there were many results, but not many in English. So I didn't find many English results and didn't feel like weeding through all the foreign results to find pertinent info.

If it's a simple reference necessary to bring the plot together, it is much different than a book based soley on molesting children.

A book referencing a sex act is less likely to have a pedo following than a site full of baby and child rape stories. Do you really not see my point here?

dudududu duh duh dududu

Wow, you cut me deep with that well thought out, deep remark.

Who the fuck are you?

This particular book, actually, consists almost solely of extremely explicit sex acts involving underage characters. In doing that, it both parodies normal erotic writing in a hilarious way and strongly attacks the dominant sexual morality. So, in effect, the content serves as a fairly strong literary device.
At the same time, however, there is not a single doubt about it that that very same book has been masturbated to by a very large amount of people. (Many of whom - I would venture to say - aren't paedophiles at all.)

The point is that it isn't possible to draw a clear line, and that outlawing certain types of fiction will always, in the end, harm literature and art, and thereby the most fundamental elements of free speech.

Furthermore I don't really see your point when you attack content based on the people reading or watching it. Isn't the problem in that more one of aesthetics and association than of ethics? After all, no matter how repulsive fiction is, it doesn't physically hurt anyone, and association with the wrong people may make something look bad, but whether it actually is bad depends on the thing itself. And, I would say, whether something actually is bad depends on its physical causes and effects, not on the aesthetic reaction it causes in us.

you might be the stupidest motherfucker in this thread if you can't see the difference between assfucking a baby and reading a story on a web site.

Exactly.

Listen: Just because YOU can't tell the difference between fiction and reality; Just because YOU can't read a story where someone gets killed or raped without going out and raping and killing someone: Doesn't give you the right to censor MY reading, because I CAN tell the difference fiction and reality, I CAN enjoy Nabokov without going out and fucking a 13 yr old, and I CAN enjoy 'Taxi Driver' without becoming a preteen pimp or killing Martin Scorcese.

The thing that I most devoutly wish is that all you total fucking idiots just REALIZED that you were total fucking idiots and left the rest of us alone. Unfortunately, you're too dumb to know you're dumb, so we're stuck having to listen to you and even worse, you tend to vote in politicians who think like you so we're stuck with George Bush and John Ashcroft from time to time.

Just go away.

I will.

'The Goodguy BadgeGood Guy Badges are what we call the little shallow things people intentionally do to appear 'good' (because they know otherwise)'

and this is exactly what I think about whenever I see these fucking pornographers parading their shallow-ass ridiculous moral majority 'values' on a PORN board.

'Look at ME, look at ME, I'm virtuous and holy and NOT a pervert, no no NOT ME!!!'

Pay no attention to the man behind the mirror eh?

^hes not kidding!

LOL open some threads, they do have their own "Lensman" :1orglaugh

I'm having a hard time believing I'm being bashed because I think it's wrong to read or write about sexually abusing children.

Hypothetical situation. Put your child or a child dear to your heart in this situation.

You're at a neighbor's/friend's/family member's house and on the way to the bathroom, you pass by his computer and notice in big letters, a title reading "I Fucked A 4 Year Old In The Ass" and a story beneath it.

Will you feel comfortable having your young daughter around this man? What if he offers to watch her while you go run some errands? What if he has a child and your daughter wants to go to their house to play?

I'm willing to bet that none of you would ever allow your child to be around this man again, especially unsupervised. Why is that? Perhaps because if he enjoys reading about sexually abusing children, it most likely arouses him, therefore he poses a threat to your child.

Seriously, put yourself in that situation and answer truthfully.

Go ahead and bash me some more... I'll be back tomorrow.

You're being bashed because you think reading and writing should be banned. You're being bashed because you are against free speech. You're being bashed because most of your arguments are extremely simplistic, and are based more on gut feelings than on rationality.


There are many people I wouldn't want my children around, especially unsupervised, including alcoholics, religious fanatics, cult members, conspiracy theorists, people with unhealthy fascinations for chainsaws, psychotics, most bums, etc.
And you are aware, I hope, that a vast majority of people wouldn't allow their children anywhere near you if they were aware of you being a pornographer.

So, clearly, the simple fact that you don't want your children around certain people doesn't mean much at all.

The point is that once you start banning things that occur only between consenting adults, you are taking away one of the most fundamental parts of freedom there are. And reading and writing stories such as these are things that, ironically, involve just consenting adults. No matter how disgusting they may be, stories are stories, nothing more.

Apart from that, I am quite certain that people who sexually enjoy stories involving minors aren't actually paedophiles. I know plenty of women who enjoy roleplaying such things as being raped, being a slave or being tortured, read stories involving extremely explicit, degrading and promiscuous sex acts, or even like reading lolicon manga. Nevertheless, most of them are quite opposed to actually being raped, treasure their freedom, in no way long to be tortured, are not planning on being gangbanged by a group of well-hung black men while their husband is out of town, and most certainly aren't into little girls, sexually.

There is a big gap between fantasy and reality, and most people are (or should be) able to fully see that gap.

Very good post but I dont think it was neccessary for people to call Michelle names.

Ya know... no one really called her anything, and in fact - she called me "dumbass" in post #259 - in response to me generalizing that this was a witch hunt.

She was reduced to personal insults and name calling.

Referring to "people in general" as witch hunters, and calling someone "dumbass", is a big difference. She began the name calling, no one else.

you might be the stupidest motherfucker in this thread that isnt name calling dont want to be at your house for the holidays lol

i see the phrase "you might be"

"if you cannot"

nice post edit.

Anyway. I didn't intend to piss off this Orgasmics nick. I simply dipped in to quote and post my amazement at how people can think of stories and images as what causes people to kill and rape.

It did and still does sound ridiculous to me.

This same "mothers rage" is what keeps parents claiming I as an adult shouldnt have violent video games because her kid may get ahold of it. This same mothers rage is what makes women kill people at abortion clinics. These people sit here trying to protect children from people, when the same people would not allow these "pornographers" anywhere near their kids. Its silly.

It's funny how these threads that are so based on emotion get twisted around and out of hand because someone starts calling someone "dumbass" because they feel their opinion is more valid, or because they do not agree that "fant6asy rape" is not real rape.

I need not explain these things, but i still stand by my quote. That it is amazing people can sit here and believe stories about killing make people kill, and that their should not be writing about topics because it would encourage people to commit murder.

Its ridiculous, i dont really have anything else to say. im going finish a tour im launching this week.

cheers

http://www.fletchbucks.com

Leaving the story content aside for the moment, if you were to come out and criticise tangible child pornography, would that be a case of you wearing a good guy badge? The answer is obviously no. You draw your line in the sand at that point, and others draw theirs at another point. Don't assume that because someone has a different view to you that it means something sinister.

But by your logic, you criticising the production of child pornography could be seen as a "good guy badge" by others. You know, parading your morals on a porn board.. look at me, look at me?

Orgasmics,

I believe that most people posting here are forgetting where to draw the line in their own minds for the sake of freedom of speech rights.

The comparisons to justify their beliefs are not right, unless the website?s author fought tooth and nail to be published and has distributors; not just a website that anyone can put up and charge money to get fantasy writings on how to abuse a child while getting sexual pleasure?even if readers don?t act out...sad but most do, if they are reading this kind of shit.

Nothing is wrong about fictional fantasy or role playing among adults. However, there is something wrong depicting a child in one?s sexual fantasy. The child has no sexual feelings. It is child abuse, pure and simple. I hope she rots in jail along with her membership patrons. JMHO :Oh crap

Fantasy or not, I believe the owner of the website was not exercising her freedom of speech but catering to child abuse and making money.

I think you are forgetting that a baby has no say or pleasure getting finger fuck or whatever...at least a puppy or kitten or any animal can fight back being young, but human baby can't.

Amazes me that you would be so stupid and continue to fight for THIS. cheers :)

Are you also against books/movies with child murder in them, or do you support the murdering of children?

If you support the right of authors and movie makers to put fake murder in their movies, then you must support mudering children, right? :1orglaugh

Murder is the worst crime a person can do according to U.S. law, so how can you support fake murder but say that fake abuse must be punished?

Some people here need to stop being emotional and start thinking logically.

You don't put someone in jail because their words offend you.

There is a very simple line and it is the one that even the U.S. supreme court drew in the "virtual child porn" ruling. The line is whether or not an actual human being is being used or harmed in the production of the material.

If there is no real child, then it is not child porn.

Once you cross that line, then everything, including mainstream movies and video games, should be banned because they "might cause someone to do something illegal".

Supporting free speech means supporting speech that offends you.

You do understand the term FICTION right ? You aren't one of those people who watch TV and want to buy a gun to shoot one of the actors because you think they are the 'character' are you ?

Some GFY member think that fake movies and stories about abusing kids should be banned, but if the author would have just written about killing kids, that would have been fine. :(

I understand fiction very well, and if I saw a TV show broadcasting a segment on insersting 'whatever' in a baby for ones' self pleasure, I would cancell my cable.

Some of you don't get it. A baby has no sexual feeling. The site owner was crossing the line. Nothing is wrong about role playing amoung adults. :)

edit: think about it

But you think it's ok to have movies where babies are killed on your cable?

Think about it.

SureFire, I'm just making sure you understand the difference between REAL and FICTION. You kept talking about a real baby. There IS NOT one. It's like getting outraged over a Soap Opera character getting raped, and yet.. it never really happened in the first place. It's FICTIONAL. It's not real. It did not involve real people. It was a THOUGHT in someone's head that got written down.

Do all you guys that are defending this girls rights to publish stories about fucking infants 6 months old have kids of your own?

If you do have kids, would you want to send him to a school where his teacher was a member of this site?

Would you want your kids going to a summer camp where his camp counselor was a member of this site?

I can't understand the logic behind defending these kinds of stories that to my sense of morals are so far over the edge and clear cut obscene.

Please explain what I'm missing here.

KRL, do you want your kids teacher or camp counselor to be a member of Lightspeed sites ? How about a regular member of Ogrish or ConsumptionJunction ?

I wouldn't want to send my kids to a teacher who's a conservative. What's that have to do with anything? Stories about illegal conduct involving children should be illegal as well because someone's teacher might read them? As far as I know, no link has ever been shown between reading a story or playing a video game and an increased propensity to commit the act that wasn't funded by the Heritage Foundation or Focus on the Family.

What you're missing is that pixels can't commit a crime. Thoughts about evil things aren't crimes. You are not the thought police. I DO NOT WANT thought police in my country.

You don't think these stories should be legal? I'm sure someone else doesn't think a story that involves killing people should be legal. I'm sure George Bush doesn't think stories that criticize the government should be legal.

This is the United States. If you want to live in a country where the government controls what you read, think and watch go to Red China. Leave this country for those who can appreciate the freedoms we're supposed to have guaranteed to us.

What's funny is that all this hysteria about child abuse started not all that long ago and led to massive arrests of innocent people. As soon as the TV started telling people there were child molestors around every corner every daycare provider in the world was dragged into court. It's a fake issue used by the govt to restrict your freedoms, just like the propaganda about the 'explosion' of huge jury awards (McDonald's having to pay millions because their coffee was too hot etc) is being used to reduce the ability of individuals to sue corporations. Now all the little sheep think every unmarried man wants to fuck babies and every corporation is in danger of going bankrupt because of out of control trial lawyers. It goes on and on and on. People never learn.

I don't have a problem with those sites compared to this one.

Yes this is the United States and its not a free for all country. We have rules and laws and there are lines in the sands that can be drawn by the majority.

I guarantee you if this issue was put to a nationwide vote the people defending this site would be countable compareable to the hundreds of millions that would be against it.

Well, you saw what happened the last 2 times the nation put something to a vote. :1orglaugh It wouldn't surprise me if they voted to shut your porn sites down and toss you in jail too.

Interesting that you didn't have a problem with Ogrish or ConsumptionJunction or Lightspeed sites being viewed by your children's teacher or summer camp counselor though. Yet you supported throwing NTFU in jail for his war/porn forum.