evelyn24
cray cray
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 2,115
- Reaction score
- 11
All I am saying is that I don't believe it is the same thing and I don't believe that all or even most who view child *advertiser censored* are also victimizing children themselves. I believe most of them are living vicariously through the *advertiser censored* images. It is a huge jump that isn't backed up by any evidence to say that all/most people who possess child *advertiser censored* also are abusing victims in their own lives.
Where are Westerfield's other victims? Where is the boy scout leader's victims? There aren't any. When some guy is sent to prison for 30 years for possessing child pornogrpahy, where are his real life victims, who he abused personally? It is one thing for a victim not to come forward on his/her own...but when the person has been proven to be a pervert, arrested w/child *advertiser censored* there is no reason why a victim would not come forward to authorities. So, to me, if you get arrested for child *advertiser censored* and no victims come forward that means you, yourself, did not abuse any children in real life.
People who possess child *advertiser censored* should go to prison. But, to my mind, it is not the same as harming a child yourself, up close and personal.
*advertiser censored* on the whole is destructive because most people without *advertiser censored* images of any kind would NEVER in their wildest dreams imagine the things they see..so it increases the chance for devient behavior, it increases the liklihood of deviant behavior but viewing does not automatically equate with doing.
Westerfield's other victims came forward during his sentencing.
It was a young girl relative he touched at a sleep over.