On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:20:24 GMT, bealoid
wrote:
>> You will also have to explain how you believe that a
>> child is further abused because an existing image is sold. I do know
>> that is a claim made by those in the enforcement and child protection
>> industries, but it is so obviously ridiculous that I do not understand
>> how anyone can fall for it.
>Child abusers often say that children are not harmed by the absue, that
>children consented, or "liked it", or were only distressed when other
>people told them it was wrong.
>The list of excuses that child abusers come up with, to allow them to
>continue abusing children, is very long.
And what has that got to do with looking at a photograph?
And while you are at it, rather than dish up the rhetoric that the
child protection industry push out, why not read some real research
about the subject and discover what the actual evidence shows? You
will find that there are both true and false claims being made on
*both* sides of the fence to push their respective agendas. As with
many issues, the truth lay somewhere in between the opposite claims
being made.
One interesting snippet is that the list of things that are today
being handed out to childcare professionals as being signs to look for
in children under their care because they are indicators of child
.ual abuse is the *identical* list of "indicators" that was
published by the Catholic Church 100 or so years ago as being signs
that a child is masturbating. Odd coincidence.
--
Cynic
|