This makes me fucking ashamed to be in the same profession as this sick little fuck.

The guy clearly has an issue of his own with kiddie porn. I hope the DA is smart enough to read this opinion as a signal that they should keep a close eye on the asswipe.

Ugh. Now I'm really regretting the fact that I just had lunch.

Well I'm sure the crowd at 'The Rebelution' would agree, seeing as how they believe their sisters might tempt them to rape them if they wear pajamas to breakfast.

Holy living hell...

It’s because we decided as a civilized society you do not want adults engaging in sexual conduct with children below 16 years of age, which flies in the face of our, I guess for lack of a better description, our normal impulses
Really? It's our natural impulse to want to engage in sexual conduct with a child below the age of 16? How do you figure?

Oh, I see...

It’s likely that most people would find young girls sexually attractive.

Right. Most people would find them sexually attractive.

I just... I don't understand this. He's all over the board here. On the one hand, it's like he's trying to say "This is a bad thing" but then he has to add "but only because we say it is."

And comparing it to a fucking traffic ticket?!

Gah.

Nice one, JAJ!

What's the procedure for castrating a judge?

I don't guys, with all the advances in medical science, there's some pretty hot looking 100 year-olds out there.

But yeah, this guy's fucking gross.

I would suggest an in-depth "discussion group" with this judge and a group of women who were victims of sexual abuse when they were sixteen and under. Preferably women who like to spend a lot of time at the gym and are proficient with hitting dense objects.

wow. Irony: April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Child Abuse Awareness Month.

Recap: the judge normalized pedophilia and gave the defendant a slap on the wrist. More than 800 images of child pornography! In the court transcript it said he tried to get a girl to take her clothes off. No harm done, according to this judge.

WOW.

Holy crap.

Riiiight, it's perfectly natural for men to be sexually attracted to infants.
Nothing wrong with that! Too bad he has to uphold this silly, restrictive law that says you're not allowed. :rolls eyes:

I wonder if he's related to the "but wife-beating is a normal occurance in Islamic countries" judge.

From the story:

According to Deputy District Attorney Kristin Luis, the images are of children "easily under the age of 10," being sexually violated by adults or engaging in sex with other children."

WHAT THE FUCK?!!!!!!!!! Seriously, this judge sounds like he is justifying his own behaviors. This is absolutely fucking outrageous!

Holy crap.

I can see saying we prohibit sex with post-pubescent children on grounds of child welfare even though many people find these physically mature young people attractive. It's still evil to act on that attraction because children, even those whose bodies are grown, are vulnerable to all kinds of abuse.

But pre-pubescent children? There's no excuse. The convicted man needs help and needs to be kept far away from his harmful sexual triggers for everyone's good. This is malum in se.

This is an interesting speculation that includes a guess as to why pedophilia exists at all:

http://www.davidbrin.com/neotenyarticle1.html

* I say he needs help because I have learned from my sister, who is a social worker caring primarily for developmentally disabled pedophiles, has told me that most pedophiles are victims of child sexual abuse and/or have developmental problems that make them see children as peers (and therefore acceptable sex partners). This does not make what child sexual abusers and child pornography consumers do okay, I just want to make sure I'm demonizing the judge for painting this as socially acceptable behavior and not the man whose bad acts may be motivated by deep psychosexual harm in his past. He should still be kept away from access to children or child porn, of course.

While I will agree that there is something for the attraction to young women of BREEDING age (after all, quite a lot of women were married off by the time they were 15 and having babies soon there after for hundreds of years)and even in some ancient societies (Greece, Rome) older men had sex with younger boys as part of their "training," the attraction to prepubescent/infant children is seriously wrong and I can't understand a judge who can't see the difference.

Based off of the judge's thoughts on this, it sounds like he might have a problem with "impulse control".

Eh, I always have a problem with the "breeding age" appeal to history, UltraMagnus, because so often it assumes that the age our kids go through puberty was the age kids went through puberty back in the day. But it wasn't; we have much better nutrition and healthcare now than most societies ever did. So in the Renaissance, for instance, it was not that uncommon for a girl not to get her period until she was 16 or 17.

What this had, in my mind, to do with this disgusting judge escapes me. Sorry for the tangent.

Umm. Eww.

This judge reminds me a little too much of Humbert Humbert. "They do it in other countries, so therefore it's not inherently wrong and I can rape Lolita." Great. Because the actions of people in other countries are never wrong. What's next, having sex with infants to cure AIDS?

Jumping Jesus On A F**king Pogo Stick.

Attn: Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox.

Thank you for sharing what turns YOU on, but to be pefectly blunt, no one asked.

As a male, I am insulted.

Good... God. Why in flaming hell is this man a judge?

As a straight man, I find it amazing that the good judge knows with such certainty what I am and am not attracted to.

I get that EG, everything was a bit different back then, including that children weren't treated as "children" so much as little adults and that women often didn't have too many periods because they were constantly having babies, but it's there.

Though the judge should realize we don't live in those times anymore and we came to that decision as a society for a reason.

Well, that is the least of what he should realize, really. I mean, does he genuinely believe that straight men are sexually attracted to three-year-olds? Really?

In all honesty, I don't think there's anything particularly natural about being attracted to 17-year-olds. They look so young to me, so unformed.

Just for the record, one year olds don't do it for me.

Okay, I just read the entire transcript of his ruling, and I'll say that, while I still find the quotes pretty obnoxious, it's not as bad as I originally thought. I mean, to be completely fair, one of the first things he says is "I was the primary person in the District Attorney's office when I was a District Attorney who prosecuted child abuse cases. I consider sexual offenses against children as abuse."

I think he doesn't speak well, but, what I get from the transcript is more along the lines of:

"Look, most men find young women attractive. Sometimes they even find young women, women below what we've deemed the age of consent, sexually attractive. We can see this because there are societies where it's been perfectly normal/acceptable to have sexual conduct with women who are as young as ten. Based on that, and on the cases I tried during my 30 years in the court, I think that cases like this are largely about a lack of self control. Some crimes are inherently evil, but there's nothing magical about the age of consent that makes it okay above but wrong below, except that we, as a society, have deemed it so. We realize the harm that comes from adults have sexual contact with children, and so we pass laws against it."

After reading the transcript, I honestly get the impression that this is really more about his ability to speak, and less about his thinking that sexual abuse against children is anything but wrong. It sounds like the guy has seen some pretty heinous sexual offenders during his time with the court. He mentions he's tried fathers who force themselves on their 14 year old daughters, 20 and 30 year old men who molest 7 year old girls, and so-on.

It sounds like he was trying to say "We're going to make an example of you- and we're going to make it clear to other people thinking of doing what you did- you may have urges, but you need to control them, or you're going to jail."

After reading the transcript, I honestly get the impression that this is really more about his ability to speak, and less about his thinking that sexual abuse against children is anything but wrong.

You may be right, and so thank God he's not in a career which involves things he says being translated into serious consequences for society.

Well what roymacIII said. I think you are intentionally misreading what the Judge meant.

But ya know what I find f*ing gross?

That 70% of women consider harming their babies.

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2005/mr-05-039.html

Women are dangerous to kids, and it is in the child's best interest to separate them from mom as soon as possible.

I mean, it's one thing to think of harming your husband, and even harming your goth teen son, but babies? That's sick.

Man, what would we do without jerry's input?

Yeah, JERRY, I bet you're right. It's not gross at all that the Judge in this case said it's FUCKING NORMAL FOR MEN TO WANT TO FUCK CHILDREN but it is extremely FUCKING GROSS for women to have POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION.

First, being from NV, I have to say WTF was this guy thinking?

Also, kpsisu, thank you.

Only 70% of women "consider" harming their babies? I'm surprised it's not a full hundred. Speaking, as always, as the baby-loving child-caretaker that I am.

jerry, my birth took 36 hours of labor and left my mother with an infection and stitches in very uncomfortable places. I was three weeks late, and so had colic almost immediately upon coming home and would scream my fool head off every night from midnight to 5am on the dot for a month or two. I'd be surprised if my mother DIDN'T consider harming me.

As for this judge, I really don't know what to think. I mean, is he implying that if he sees a particularly adorable 5 year old and he thinks "that is an adorable little girl" that it's "attraction"? Because it's not, it's a 5 year old being adorable. Attraction is seeing a 5 year old and thinking "I'd hit that" which is most definitely not normal. Ugh, I'm not sure I want to know what's on his hard drive.

Wanted to clarify what the study jerry cites is actually about, in case anyone else is inclined to waste their time following the link. It is referencing new mothers' worries about ACCIDENTALLY causing harm to a baby, or worries / fears about the baby becoming sick, as well as thoughts about causing intentional harm. Which, you know, are just thoughts, in any case.

Yes, EG, I would have thought 100% too!

Sigh. I don't think "harming thoughts" about babies are gross. I think they are normal. (And I think research is that moms and dads have them.)

I think it is easy to take a statement out of context and have all sorts of outrage about it.

Did this judge let the guy go? No he gave him 18 years and said that anyone caught with child porn in his county would be going to jail.

Must everything be outrage?

Btw, the study is not just about accidental harm, it is also about "intentional harm" like drowning, shaking, and slapping.

It is in part because people like to go "full throttle outrage" on everything, that it makes it hard for researchers to study what it is that people think.

I'm interested in this "thoughts of harming babies" study. I think those thoughts are normal too. When I have them, it's my vigilance that there could be danger that triggers them. It's no different than thoughts of jumping when you're up high, it might mean you're suicidal but more likely it's dealing with a sudden awareness of hight and danger. I think it's imagination as a safety mechanism.

jerry, i indicated in my description of the study that it did also include intentional harm. so, either you don't read other people's posts in their entirety, or you choose to selectively ignore details. Which may explain why you don't yet get that the outrage is about the judge's statements, not the sentence handed down. i think it's pretty justified to feel disgusted by comments promoting the idea that "most men" are sexually attracted to female human beings regardless of age, "1 to 100." As a man, I would be equally outraged by that characterization. maybe the question is not why we are outraged, but why you are not.

Uh, yeah, I got off topic with the 'baby harming thoughts' thing. I think asserting that men are attracted to women 1-100 years old is very disturbing. I think calling a 1 year old a woman rings some alarm bells.

Well, it is totally natural to be attracted to teens. They are the sexual ideal, physically. And in most cases, it's probably not all that wrong to have sex with them.

The problem is consent. Children are not capable of consent. Certain teens may be, but it's an individual thing.

The thing that's stupid about the argument is this: All kinds of things we don't like (death, disease, murder, etc..) are perfectly natural. Why should natural be an excuse for this? What else makes it acceptible?

They are the sexual ideal, physically.

But to whom? It's also important not to confuse real teenagers with what we're told teenagers look like by television programs and the like. Real teenagers often have terrible acne, are gawky as they're still not quite adjusted to the changes in their bodies, don't know how to take care of their hair, overdue the make-up to an absurd degree, etc. Teenage boys often don't have chest hair yet, if you like that kind of thing.