And now to the commentary, which I want to comment on myself:Woman begins using online dating sites after a relationship break up. Woman starts meeting men online and woman begins to enter a drug induced fantasy world that also includes role playing to satisfy her online male partners.
So far, it seems ordinary or a part of the contemporary dating scene, but it gets worse:....The woman in this scenario isn't an impressionable€™ and gullible teen, nor is she a naive twenty year old. We're talking about a forty year old woman here, that sure enough, used her drug addiction as an excuse to obtain, store and display child pornography. The drugs didn't cloud her judgment too much, for her to store a massive amount of child porn on her computer and continually 'role play' to satisfy sickos on the other end of the PC.
Shortly after being arrested, numerous images and films are found on the woman's computer. Images include children being forced to participate in bestiality. Other children are tortured, and a disturbing 17 minute film depicts a girl being sexually abused by a man. Police catalogue 2169 still images and 143 films. The images and films were discovered after a tip off from a man the woman communicated with online. The woman has been sentenced to serve four and a half years with a non-parole period of three years, and I'€™m guessing that the children that appear in the films and pictures will experience a literal life sentence of distress.
My only comment is this: Why are we presuming that she's doing it for "a cock?" The news story claims that these were her own fantasies, exascerbated by her drug use making her lose "moral perspective." Where does the idea that her tops got her into finding real material come from at all, much less this link to their organs/gender? The only top I see in this story at all... is the one who turned her in.It is cases like this that make me ask another disturbing question: why are some woman so fucked up? Why do they surrender everything for a cock? This case is unlike the Second Life controversies over role playing (under aged parts) for fantasy purposes as it enters the real realm; someone must have captured the images and filmed the distressing scenes, distributed the images, and it isn't fantasy for the children on the other end that are subjected to such debased fantasies. When does a fantasy become debased? When it enters the real realm and affects living people who aren't capable of making an informed choice, and even if you could make an informed choice (to participate in violent sex) as an adult, what does that really indicate about a person's psyche? It isn't politically correct or sexually politically€™ correct to even raise this question but it is a valid question. In this case, we have a forty year old woman who made an informed choice. I'm not convinced about the drug induced aspect. She could still function on a computer, she was aware she was storing illegal pornographic imagery of minors, and she continued in her role play. A four year jail term is incredibly short for people who distribute/disseminate child pornography because when they do this, they’re actually maintaining a market for child porn, which means that a sicko on the other end is procuring minors/children for their sexual purposes. Children disappear each day, never to return, and there are other sicker cases where parents gain an income from their children by filming them performing acts against their will, selling them to the highest bidder online.
How does one go from online dating/chatting to losing their entire perspective? I don't think that the internet can be blamed because adults make a choice. There are millions of people who use the Internet to find relationships or date, and they don’t enter the dark zone of child pornography and questionable sexual fantasies and there are others that have a tendency to take things to extreme levels; they have pathological traits away from the Internet, and when they go online, it mutates to something more sinister.
It's entirely possible that a fucked up relationship with a predator got her started. And if that's true, this may be a response to trauma. But it sure sounds to me like she's the pedophile here. And yeah, there's a patriarchy, and yeah, it hurts girls. But why the idea that her submissiveness meant she lacked sense, and men put her up to this, rather than the idea that she condoned and abetted predators by collecting and distributing child pornography?
Maybe I'm oversensitive here, being a top myself and all. Is anyone else WTFing at this reaction too?
12 comments:
Absolutely I'm WTF-ing, for the same reason as you.
I also got a WTF from this passage:
When does a fantasy become debased? ... even if you could make an informed choice (to participate in violent sex) as an adult, what does that really indicate about a person's psyche?
Which is setting off WTFs from me on so many levels! (I'm sure I don't need to explain them)
I'm still WFT'ing at the four year sentence!
Having read the blog you linked to, I think the writer may be saying 'surely you know when you're stooping too low in your attempt to impress someone'. Every decent person knows when they are losing themselves and breaking their own 'codes' in an attempt to attract someone and you say 'no, that's not me and you're not worth that'.
I don't care what adults choose to do between themselves, but when it comes to children, surely we're just hard-wired to protect them, or at least to respond to their distress or possible danger in a positive way weather we're the parent or not? I'm not a parent myself, but I'd still take the on anybody who harmed someone who was smaller and unable to fight back (I once tapped on a man's shoulder in an airport having witnessed him slap his little girls' legs so hard she nearly fell over and asked if he picked on people his own size too - haha).
She is one seriously disturbed individual and I think you're right, it's something deeply screwed up in her, men have nothing to do with it.
I think it hasn't entered the collective conscious that a woman can actually be a paedophile. It's a notion so utterly horrifying that we as humans (and especially women) will look for another reason for her behaviour before being forced to acknowledge the horrible reality.
I tripped over that same like that got Snowdrop, mm. But I feel like the 'story' here - the thing that made SLFB think that one of her tops had caused it - is that the woman was identifying with the victim of the child abuse, and was viewing images of abuse because of that. It's as if everyone believes that you can only participate in abuse if you identify with a dominant role, which, HELLO, NOT TRUE. Abusers can come from any orientation.
"Having read the blog you linked to, I think the writer may be saying 'surely you know when you're stooping too low in your attempt to impress someone'. Every decent person knows when they are losing themselves and breaking their own 'codes' in an attempt to attract someone and you say 'no, that's not me and you're not worth that'."
The thing is, Gaina, I'm not sure that's what was going on. Yes, she does describe using the child porn as a model, and liking being good at what she was "asked to do."
But the thing is, if what really drove her to this was that her tops used it and gave it to her as a model, wouldn't she have mentioned this somewhere?
Instead, she just says she did too much ice. Which makes it sound to me like the inhibitions disappearing were not those of the people she submitted to.
"I think it hasn't entered the collective conscious that a woman can actually be a paedophile. It's a notion so utterly horrifying that we as humans (and especially women) will look for another reason for her behaviour before being forced to acknowledge the horrible reality."
Exactly. Which is the same thing I sometimes see with people who still deny the possibility of lesbian battering (or that women can batter men.) We simply don't want to believe a woman could do such things.
"It's as if everyone believes that you can only participate in abuse if you identify with a dominant role, which, HELLO, NOT TRUE. Abusers can come from any orientation."
YES.
Hi there everyone,
In regard to my comment in the post, 'why are some women so fucked up?' it is a controversial statement to make, but (to me) it is fucked up when women (after all these feminist movements, and milestones) totally abandon their logic. In this case, the woman reacted to a relationship breakup in the way she did. She decided to escape via adult online dating sites. Perhaps it was easier for her to handle 'dating' on a virtual level, whatever, and there are many people who do this as a way to handle the internal baggage from previous relationships, but they don't all do what this woman did.
In Sydney, we've had a crisis with the drug Ice, but the majority of addicts don't sit there engaging in sexual cyber activity; they're often busy trying to get their next hit.So in one regard, the drug reason is a legal excuse, the type used by legal defense teams to say that she wasn't in a sane (legal definition) state of mind, which got her a four year sentence. This case, in my view, is a good example of the blurred lines between function and dysfunction.
Many often think that virtual play or fantasy is harmless, but when it involves child pornography, and/or the distribution of child porn, then it is harmful because the act, in its own way, maintains an illicit market, which means that it feeds into the exploitative loop; enabling abusers to distribute their images on the web. This woman wasn't a pedophile, no, she didn't capture the images, but she got the child porn images from somewhere. They didn't materialize on her computer by chance. She had a significant collection of child porn in still image and film.
Anastasia,
I don't think "she reacted to a breakup" this way. I don't think you get into using child porn because someone broke up with you. I think you use child porn because you are a pedophile.
That's why I find your claim mind-boggling. Even you say that most users of ice don't do this. If they don't, why did she? The answer is obvious to me. The claim that someone becomes a pedophile because someone dumped her is ludicrous to me.
The woman has no previous pedophile charges or any history, and although it may be controversial, it is possible that she simply got suckered in by a male predator that she felt she needed to impress or 'obey' and it evolved over time.
In her court statements, she doesn't indicate that she's a pedophile, in that she experienced arousal by the content, it was more a case of her playing a role to comply with the men she was chatting with who sought that fantasy. It's a situation of wrong place, wrong time, marred logic. Like I mentioned, all people experience relationship trauma, but many don't get suckered into the fantasy and/or can tell the difference between sane role play and the opposite, and this isn't what can be termed sane (in the legal definition).
Anastasia,
In the absence of any mention of such suckering, I think all we have to go on is the idea that she found and used these materials herself. That suckering may have indeed happened, but I find it a curious lacuna indeed that it's not mentioned if so.
I think it's possible to draw a distinction between "paedophile" and "abuser" here. It seems to me that this woman is clearly an abuser, in that she is deliberately making use of the children's suffering in order to further her own pleasure. However, she doesn't appear from the story to have shown any sexual attraction towards the children (which is the definition of a paedophile).
I agree with Trinity that there doesn't seem to be any excusing the behaviour on "previous break-up" or anything else.
Makes sense, Snowdrop. I'm just really leery of the whole "men get women to..." meme.
Eboniorchid's Cheap Diablo 3 Itemsgood reason that had to do with not being exploited; mine experienced considerably GW2 Goldmore regarding practicalities.
Post a Comment