Millionaire author John Grisham says not all men who watch child porn pedophiles

[FA_Q2]

All this bs is being engineered to break down society legal or not, pervert or not etc. ..

I agree, but that does not mean that Grisham is wrong to make the observation that he made.

I think it has gray areas , and I don't think it nec. makes him an in the closet perv. either. But I agree with what you mentioned in your other post.

My take is kind of like this :Often they use really young women/girls and make them look older than they really are and it can be easily flubbed into men thinking it's a real young adult of course........When really it's a kid.

I think some of the dangers in porn are people think of it just like pot once you dabble in pot you can start trying out other things it leads to other stuff. So someone jerking off to a kid it could lead to them wanting the real thing same as those little kid robots where that one Country allowing them to use child like robots will keep real kids safe I dunno about that one....................................those to could lead to someone wanting the real thing.

Anyway that might be why some are in an up roar about Grisham saying what he did.

Yeah, some men just have a preference for thin, tight skin youngish looking women, just like some men have a preference for Reubenesque women or red heads or Asians or whatever. I wont even go into the kinky shit.

But the laws on child porn are just over the top. For example, if you are looking at a porn site and get a redirect trojan into your browser, it can take you to other sites you never consciously decided to go to. Among all those thumbnail pics can you swear that none of them are younger than 18? If you did get one on your PC you are in violation of child porn laws and could get the full Monty if the law found out and someone had an axe to grind with you.

We have given the state way too much power in this matter, IMO.

The extremely rare case does not prove to point nor do the comments reflect that as Grisham's point. I think it was pretty clear that he was talking about those that knowingly consume child pornography.

The laws always draw a line that can be blurry at times because of circumstance - that is the nature of written law. That is what juries exist for IMHO - to not only determine if the accused is guilty of a crime but if those unique circumstances that situation occurred under are fitting of a guilty verdict.

 

[Gracie]

All this bs is being engineered to break down society legal or not, pervert or not etc. ..

I agree, but that does not mean that Grisham is wrong to make the observation that he made.

I think it has gray areas , and I don't think it nec. makes him an in the closet perv. either. But I agree with what you mentioned in your other post.

My take is kind of like this :Often they use really young women/girls and make them look older than they really are and it can be easily flubbed into men thinking it's a real young adult of course........When really it's a kid.

I think some of the dangers in porn are people think of it just like pot once you dabble in pot you can start trying out other things it leads to other stuff. So someone jerking off to a kid it could lead to them wanting the real thing same as those little kid robots where that one Country allowing them to use child like robots will keep real kids safe I dunno about that one....................................those to could lead to someone wanting the real thing.

Anyway that might be why some are in an up roar about Grisham saying what he did.

When the term "child porn" comes up, I think of things I can never unsee once seen. Like, seeing news reports of some sicko/wacko raping a 3 month old girl. Horrific. Just awful. My brain can never erase that much as I try. How the hell can a grown mans penis fit into a 3 month old baby without tearing that child apart? And why would anyone want to do that to a baby? Or grown ass men raping a 5 year old. Or pics of babies looking into a camera and a For Sale sign on it. Or pics of 11 to 15 year olds being used and sold and passed around for horny nasty men to sexually use. 16 and 17...I don't think of much because my brain does not see them as children although legally they are. 16, 17...they are not far from 18, able to run and fight if need be. But BABIES? Toddlers? 7 year olds forced to do things with others or each other? THAT is what turns my stomach. And any man that watches that shit even though he does not actually do what he is watching but still watches it anyway just to get off..that turns my stomach too.

Just sayin'. What Grisham said could very well have some truth to it, but I didn't read it that way. I read it that he is excusing "just watching" as being AOK if not actually guilty of doing it.