Pedophile Warning Policy Discussion
This is a page to discuss the inclusion of warnings on entries for websites which User:Misha has determined to contain pro-paedophile content.
Contents
multipronged
Misha's usual warning template is misleading and opinionated. I believe she should have the option to place it in the "Community reviews" section and, if anything, the topmost notice should be replaced with a neutral content description. For example, I proposed for AnnabelLeigh.net:
- Notice: AnnabelLeigh.net contains content supportive of sexual attraction to children (i.e. paedophilia).
In contrast, Misha's note for that page reads:
- WARNING: The site referenced may contain pedophilic content and discussions and is not suitable for children. It could possibly have illegal content and contains content inappropriate for AboutUs.
- If you come across any material that sexually exploits children, looks like child pornography, has a misleading URL name that might lead children to find this URL or seems to advocate sex with children you may report it to the FBI at CyberTipLine.org. They take reports on URLs hosted in every country.
- PEDOPHILE ON THE RUN AND IN THE NEWS, JACK MCCLELLAN, RECENTLY POSTED HERE ASKING FOR HELP, WHICH OTHERS ARE OFERING HIM. [bolding added by me]
I moved this to the community reviews section. She reverted.
It's almost like she believes she has warrant to place her reviews above everything. Additionally, her claim that "could possibly have illegal content" is wrong; the site is monitered by a team of moderators who delete anything that could be considered illegal in Canada, the US, or the UK, and much else (such as links to youtube videos of children). The Gazette recently claimed that "[p]olice forces like the Sûreté du Québec have said there is little they can do about websites hosted by Epifora [such as annabelleigh.net] because, while they come close to breaking the law, the people behind them know how not to cross the line." multipronged 14:53, 31 August 2007 (PDT)
- first off, Multipronged is a known pedophile that belongs to pedophile boards where he instructs people on how to "clean their hard drive" among other things. Misha
- I challenge Misha to provide a screenshot of me giving such instructions. In fact, I challenge Misha to show us a screenshot of any post made to a pedophile board by me that wasn't just warning people of vigilante attacks planned by Perverted-Justice.com. SPOILERS: She won't, because she can't. She's lying. multipronged 15:13, 31 August 2007 (PDT)
Misha's response
In response... This warning needs to be at the top so it's the FIRST thing people see. If it is in the community review section, people may not take the time to scroll down and look at the community review before they make their decision to enter the site, especially children or adults who are unaware such sites exist. Many of the users posts pictures as "avatars" on their posts on these sites which are from NN sites and I have seen some animated "lollicon" pictures as well, both of which coul dbe illegal. One need only go to these sites and read for a few minutes to see the content is disturbing. Also, the admins of Aboutus have the right to decide illegal or not if it is inappropriate for AboutUs. That was the prupose and after ma ny long discussions the decision to approach the matter this way. About us is not a forum for pedophiles to state their activism and recruit children into their way of thinking. it is a place where families can go and search for information about websites without fear of their children being in danger. That is why the warning must be on top. It's not a reiview, it's a warning. Misha
- You're forgetting that I devised a neutral replacement for your opinionated notice, and left it at the top of the page. multipronged 15:17, 31 August 2007 (PDT)
I don't know what you are talking about, if you could be more specific it would help. Misha
- I won't bother replying to your argumentum ad hominem. My replacement is:
Notice: {{FULLPAGENAME}} contains content supportive of sexual attraction to children (i.e. paedophilia).multipronged 15:40, 31 August 2007 (PDT)
- How about "Containts Material relating to Sexual Attraction to Children". Sorry Misha but just using Pedophilia is not all true. You would have to say that and/or Ephebephilia. These type of people find ways around getting out of that word. If the site contains pubescent content (13-17) They would legally have the right to say that pedophilia is wrong. --Master Baitor 00:13, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
Master Baitor's Response
I have been convicted of possesion of child porn and spent time going through therapy to learn to understand and manage my issues. Now after admitting that, i would have no problem having you placing a warning on my pages. I Think that Misha has some good points. She might be a little too passionate at times in her conviction that doesn't mean her points are invalid, Sorry Misha, not trying to insult you.
What I know
The availability of some NN sites mostly in the states are pretty tame and can be argues out but there are way to many that are much more. If you haven't seen them, they do pose children in very skimpy undergarments and some even topless all the while starting off with harmless poses and working into more sexual. You will find these sites harder to find on google because they keep it that way also google tries to ban them as well.
As for sites that promote these kinds of sites or even the pictures is another story. Understand that going through therapy you learn that this whole thing is a process. I have stated to others before that think of pedophillia as a beach ball. We struggle to hold it down but how long can we hold it down. Eventually it will arise. Well NN's are part of the process in many but it is farther down the line then you think. You get tempted to go to nudes next. Remember, like a beach ball, it will rise as we get weaker. From nudes it gets worse. I don't want to go there because i am sure you can imagine. People who advocate NN sites hate it when you propose the idea that this will happen. They don't realize that they are promoting a progression in the stages of pedophillia. I am not saying all that look at them do but it is a vast number that are looking for temporary relief to a battle inside of them. They can convince themselves so well that it is a form of control that will work and last because they hate the idea that they might get worse. If you were in their boots could you admit it? And when confronted about this they get nasty, as you have seen. This is the reason that people, communities, and governements are trying to get laws changed. They know it is harmful. They know that this promotion will eventually hurt a child and destroy any dignity left in the person committing the crime. I wish you could sit in my support group and listen the guys who talk about their progression. Almost all of them will tell you that they looked at catalogues and flyers first to seek a fix. Then a lot found NN's ... worked for awhile .. they then found NN sites that offered nudes of the same girl in the back end hidden. But these fixes only last so long. The urge gets stronger and then they find Child Porn. By then it is very hard to turn back. I got lucky and got caught at this point but too many have learned ways to keep hidden and the stories of these guys and their progression from there is not good to mention. I have been in support for 5 years now and have maybe 300 guys in that time and most have gone farther. I live in a poplation area of about 150,000 people. If they say that only about 8% get caught .. then that is a very high ration per capita where i live. If we look at the stats for the average number of victims per pedo .. they say 5. Now my numbers could be wrong but by guess that would mean about 16,000 children just in my area that have the potential of being sexually abused. Way too many. So i ask myself this: Is the promotion of NN good when I know that it will definitely lead to the abuse of a child. NO ... it is not worth the abuse of even 1 child. They are our future and even if it not our children we still have an obligation to protect their future. We fight for the right for a cleaner earth but forget our most valuable asset, our children.
If a site truely wanted to help these guys seek help, and there is help out there because i have been through it, then they would never want to promote pictures of children but instead open a discussion place where people can support and find help for those that want to change. You would never give an alcoholic a bottle of booze, would you? No difference.
You can tell that those that can't admit it will fight hard. They will attack, attack, and attack me. I am used to this. Because I have been there, I know all the lies and excuses we tell to ourselves and others. I know that just by attacking me they are showing that most likely they are in denial and because they are in denial they are the most dangerous because they refuse to accept that they have a problem. Denials in this racket means the chance of hurting a child is even greater. --Master Baitor 23:58, 31 August 2007 (PDT)
- Manipulate words and re-edit your post all you want MB.The fact of the matter is,your a convicted child sex offender,and i do not really see why you are permitted to be allowed in a community which is trying to help protect children.Even if you have been "cleaned" there is always the desire,because you have already acted upon it.You may say you are wanting to help,but you have already explotited children sexually and i do not see why you are allowed to continue to state these things while being such.Just as felons allways will have to live with there felony,and are not permitted in certain communities and areas.I feel the same should be done for you,as you have harmed children sexually in the past. Darkgiant 00:13, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
I think this MB makes a good point. IF your site is supposeddly advocating protection of a child then why would you promote known steps in the progress of a pedo by promoting these so called pictures of children. Are you not promoting the chances of a kid getting hurt?--24.66.94.140 09:35, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
- Users who seek out support for any problems that they wish to seek help for are welcomed to do so.Any users who wish to be educated about the non nude teen model sites are also welcomed.As we have nothing illegal(and definatly not child pornography) we attempt to support both users.Those who wish to seek emotional support dealing with there thoughts,and those who are wishing to be educated in the area of non-nude teen modeling sites.We try to support both groups in an effort to form one community where users are free to discuss there thoughts and can feel an open connection to our users.So that there is a common ground for users to express them self freely and without fear or reprisal from those who do not see the same views. Darkgiant 09:48, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
It is still possibly illegal in some places including the US and not appropriate for children. By encouraging pedophiles (or ephebephiles or whatever they wanna call themselves) to stay the way they are on these sites it is leaving the possibility of someone getting hurt. Either the adult for being encouraged to view the pictures and you and others telling him it's not illegal when it IS illegal, or a child can be hurt by being lured into these sites because you and others tell them pedophilia is a "normal" "not to be feared" attraction to minors and "childlove" and the next thing you know their childhood is ruined. Still the issue is not about peoples opinions on pedophilia and AboutUs is not a forum to discuss this, the issue is about protecting children and adults by keeping them informed. It's that simple. Even if it saves ONE kid or adult it's worth it. Misha
- Per our TOS and UA and forum registration form.Users under the age of 18 are prohibited from joining our site and forums.Users are required to fill out a DOB field before they can attempt to join our site.If they fill in incorrect information and lie about there age,this is not our fault or problem as they are in violation of our TOS and UA.There are no users under the age of 18 on our forums or site.All registrations have to be manually approved by a AS Staff member before they are allowed to join the forums.For those users who fill in a DOB that is under 18,they are deleted and blocked from rejoining the site via and email and ip address ban.
- We do not encourage the physical touching or otherwise violation of children,stating such a claim is libelous.
- Users cannot help there attraction.
- The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.(1)
- Therefore we try to help them cope with there attraction.What you are doing is having a predetermined thought that all people who have attraction for child(not a sexual("the penetration of a child or the molestation") attraction),are abusers and rapist and are harming children.This is not the case.You are stereotyping a broad class of people.
- Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until it was further researched and studied and found to be a personal choice.
- Viewed by some as a pathology or mental illness to be cured, homosexuality is now more often investigated as part of a larger impetus to understand the biology, psychology, politics, genetics, history and cultural variations of sexual practice and identity (2)
- The same applies for those who are attracted to youth.They cannot help there attraction and are forced to deal with it for the remainder of there life,daily.We are only trying to help deter these users from committing a crime, they are legal non-nude teen modeling sites, at which they can legally admire them digitally and can stay away from committing crimes.The same with a cigarette smoker trying to stop smoking.There are nicotine patches that they can use to help fight the urge of smoking.This can be considered the same.
- ...or a child can be hurt by being lured into these sites because you and others tell them pedophilia is a "normal" "not to be feared" attraction to minors and "childlove" and the next thing you know their childhood is ruined...Misha
- This does not answer the fact that NN pictures are still a step in the process of pedophillia. They still allow for the user to fantasize which feeds the temptation. The temptaion still feeds the urge. The urge feeds the progression. Your comparison with nicotine would not be a good one since the patches are only nicotine and no one has ever been harmed by nicotine since it is not the nicotine that kills but the many other chemicals in a cigerette. The use of drug users that go on Meth would not be good because to be able to get the meth they are forced to go to counciling as well. I do thank you for recognizing that this is a issue that a person can never get rid of but no descent agency or website that would care for either the person or the potential children that could be harmed would feed to the urges of a person with pedophile tendancies. To not accept that this is possible would mean denial and there for could not say they are child advocates. As well, shows that the spokesperson is most likely very dangerous themselves to the public because they are refusing to see the potential harm of a child. --Master Baitor 18:48, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
- If not for the nicotine in the cigarettes there would be no chemical addiction to the cigarettes,as the body is addicted to the nicotine,thus associates smoking with the pleasure of the nicotine,and the only way to acquire this feeling is from the cigarettes,therefore the addiction to the cigarettes is for the body to get a dose of nicotine.There is no potential harm to any children at our site.Just because one chooses to view the legal non nude teen modeling pictures,does not mean they are going to sexually abuse children.MB considering your history,what was the progression which you had that led you to sexually abuse a child? I doubt it was legal non nude child modeling pictures,considering the heinous material you posted at our site,i believe you were already viewing illegal hardcore pornographic material before you joined our site or before you started harassing us on TPB(ThePirateBay).It is not a progression at all,every person has there our limits and responsibilities that they must exert on them selves.It is not our responsibility to tend to there personal lives.We will offer support if a user askes us.So according to your theory, since there are guns available to the public to purchase,every person who sees a gun will get violent thoughts of shooting and murdering people,just because they saw the gun? This is ridiculous
- This is like saying all professional drivers who race dragsters and funny-cars,are going to be speeding when they are not on the job.Just because there profession requires them to race at speed exceeding the state legal speed limit.Or saying any person who eats an excess of the daily calorie limit suggested and accepted by dietrisions internationally(2,000 calories) is going to become obese,because they deviated from the suggested limit.There is no progression as standardized progression as you state. Darkgiant 19:14, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
MY point is still not answered. If we know that giving advocating for NN pictures are feeding a timeline to which it is an end that looks grim for a child, how can anyone saying they advocate for the protection of a child do so? If we know that the chances are great for even just one child being abused, is it worth it? --Master Baitor 09:25, 3 September 2007 (PDT)
I thought this page was to discuss a policy and not a website directly? --Master Baitor 14:03, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
Stay on Topic Please
Again, this not a topic about one particlular site. It is about the entire AboutUs community, which involves many people logging on from all countries and in all age groups. The purpose of this template is to warn parents and children when a site may be Adult content, content with pedophilic content or illegal. It is not a place to debate pedophilia or the content and mistakes of one site. Please stay on topic and make a valid argument why the sites tagged do not have adult and/or illegal content and/or caters to pedophiles. I have stated my points over and again,the Art Sapience discussion is dead. The owners have said over and over their site could be illegal in some countries, therefore the tag is needed. The New-Start Diane site has right there on the website a disclaimer saying it may be illegal in some countries. So these two discussion points are moot. If you have some valid reaon why we should not tag sites of little girls dressed in lingerie and thongs with their buts sticking in the air like porn stars (which in my opinion exisst for only one reason, for pedophiles to get their rocks off), post it here otherwise, please leave this space free for meaningful contributions to the debate. Misha
My Comments
Why are ALL MY comments removed???
What about the solution to this problem or does everyone wish to argue over pedophilia for the next millennium?
Questionable Content Policy covers all the concerns of this matter and seek to resolve it with out the head lock of bias opinion.
Why was my EXTREMELY valid comments completely removed from this discussion?
As you noticed even some of mine were removed. We are being asked to phrase these so they are not about personal but about the discussion. --Master Baitor 17:49, 3 September 2007 (PDT)
Questionable Content Policy And Template Notice
I have created a notice for potential offending wiki pages that is both none offensive and informs the end users of the sites content but also allowing for variable content that is not specifically pedophilia related as there are from my experience more than 20+ various sexual references in the younger age bracket alone and if we wish to have a discussion with every single sex group in the world as their sites are grabbed by the bot then so be it, I think the smarter choice is to have a more generic title they can be placed an an offensive site that warns the users but will not result in the owner of a domain be highly offended if the domain or website content does not match that which the more direct and rather offensive claims of the pedophilia and child sex banners say about a persons character. For if we do not actually know the person in control of the site and yet still class them as a stereotype would that not make all parties concern bias and in turn prejudice without due cause?
Please at least look at the policy I have drafted and the notice as if we discuss the solution we will get further than if we continue to discuss what the problems are. We already know the problems and now we can use that knowledge to develop better solutions.
