The FBI and speciality ****Follow

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1675832

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

Well, this sector of the FBI should be tracking down Child Pornography, correct? What I don't understand is how they think investigating BD/SM pornography would have to do with Child Pornography.

Edited, Sun Oct 2 01:06:06 2005 by GogetaExtreme

Well why not? Fine, you win!

Is liking Hentai a bad thing?

I don't believe you

No.

Asian girls have jobs?

Who do you think made your shoes?

Getting back to the original post for a moment, it's funny that the FBI agents themselves have been the sensible ones in this whole fiasco.

I've read statements from agents such as, "Guess the war on terror is over, then, right?", and "Most of us would have to recuse ourselves."

Sign of the times when the Fibbies are the ones making sense.

Wow, The hentai fight... some people just can't hold a relationship, but want some good times, but I really don't recall wanting something "Banana" shaped in the seat, when I was 12. No matter how nice the picture looks :O ^^;; but seriously, you can't help how you are born, and most fetishists are born that way, it is
unavoidable, and you can't blame a dude drawing pictures to have what he could not normally have, But you can hold him responcable for actting on it, and raping someone. Sorry FBI but there are alot of sick people in America, and attacking us for not being "Normal" is just as bad as attacking people for the color of thier skin, or not being um... what is that word I am looking for.... different.
Oh wait, I forgot, patriot act. *laughs* sorry forgot your allowed to do that now. so I guess I can't say much more then: If I want to
tie my gf to a chair and make her say uncle, why is it assumed that I am going to use a kid in it? I just don't see where childporn comes into play in normal SM?
-Btw this is my first post in the here, wonder if I will get modded?>

Hmm. I'm not buying this.

In my life as an armchair psychologist, a fetish is a sign of obsessive behavior, which is a symptom of a mental disorder. Many mental disorders can be treated.

In short, two words: Patriot Act.


The feds can do pretty much whatever they want now. With or without a court order/warrant/whatever, and it is all admissible in the judicial system.

[soapbox]

A fetish is NOT an obsessive behavior, it's simply an orientation, just like being gay. Trust me on this, as a sometime practitioner of BDSM, I have spent a lot of time analyzing the psychological mechanisms behind my kink.

I've asked myself what "made" me a submissive? Was it childhood sexual trauma? No, I was having submissive fantasies years before I was sexually molested, even as early as the age of five. Was it witnessing the behavior of my slutty alcoholic mother? No, because up to the age of five or six when my fantasies first began to manifest, my mother was actually flying fairly straight, it was only after that time that she really began to act out.

I could probably dig deeper than that to try to find a cause--maybe I would even succeed--but why should I? Even if I found a "cause" for my own kinkiness, I know fifty other BDSM practitioners who wouldn't share it, or necessarily be able to identify a cause at all. Maybe we were born that way, maybe we weren't. Either way, what does it matter? My fetish isn't harming anyone, including me. I'm a perfectly healthy, normal, well-adjusted, socially productive adult with a well-adjusted, normal, socially productive spouse. So what if I like to be tied up and whipped from time to time? Why should that be treated as a "mental disorder"?

Not too long ago, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the DSM (II or III, I am not certain.) There's a reason why that classification was removed. Because it was a non-coercive behavior that in no way impaired a person's ability to function as a self-supporting member of society; in other words, it wasn't an "illness". BDSM or other non-coercive fetishes have no place being treated as mental illnesses either, as long as they are exactly that: non-coercive..

There ARE coercive paraphilias. Exhibitionism, voyeurism, frotteurism (rubbing a non-consenting person with one's genitals) or toucherism (manually fondling a non-consenting person). All of these involve a person inflicting their fetish upon a non-consenting public. Obviously, these DO need to be treated as mental illnesses, and crimes, because they do inflict harm upon others

It's neither accurate nor fair to lump BDSM in with these, because most practitioners of BDSM scrupulously make certain that consent is in place for all activities and that boundaries are clearly established and negotiated and that safety mechanisms are in place (hence the concept of a safeword.) How many "vanilla" lovers take such precautions to make sure that the experience is safe and healthy and fulfilling for both partners?

[/soapbox]

Anyhow, I am wondering what I missed in the article that made this discussion zero in on BDSM, which it seemed like the Attorney General was focusing on **** in general.



Edited, Sun Oct 2 18:22:16 2005 by Ambrya

Yes. Children do have sexual fantasies, however much adults wish to pretend otherwise. Most childhood games--like playing house--come from emulating adult behavior. If sex is a part what adults do (and even if mom and dad keep their sexual activities out of sight, a kid can't miss it on TV or in movies) children will incorporate that idea into their imagination and play.

Come on, let's be honest here. Show of hands...how many girls enacted clothes-off love scenes between Barbie and Ken at some point before they were ten?



Edited, Sun Oct 2 19:06:55 2005 by Ambrya