Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:48 PM
Mon Dec 21
44 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
I attended my first traditional Mexican wedding a few weeks ago, and was taken aback by some of the events. When the bride was getting ready to throw the bouquet, she stood on a chair opposite her husband and all of the women had to link arms and run (whip, more like) around the dancefloor. And my boob flew out of my dress.
Then the bouquet was thrown straight at me and I dodged out the way.
It was so much fun.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
/sarcasm
07/14/09
07/14/09
And now, let's address the oft-trotted out argument somehow it's ok to make the possession of child porn illegal on the off chance that it stops children from being raped in front of cameras. First of all, there are already plenty of laws stopping criminals from profiting from their crimes after conviction. Second of all, the law don't criminalize a commercial purchase of child porn pictures, they criminalize the mere possession. Someone could've stolen those pictures, ya know, the same way people 'steal' music and are apparently bankrupting record industry. In the latter case, it's somehow seen as detrimental to the industry, the former, it's an enabler? Give me a break. Third of all, you really think criminalizing the possession of something discourages its production? Tried that with everything from alcohol to weed. Fourth, if you really want to criminalize things that indirectly profit from criminal acts after the fact, in the hopes that they prevent future criminal acts, you'd probably want to ban people from buying gangsta rap and watching Nancy Grace.
Culpability should only go so far. If someone gets his jollies from pictures of a crime, but that someone had nothing to do with commissioning the crime or any foreknowledge of it, that person is not responsible for the crime in any way.
07/14/09
07/14/09
"If someone gets his jollies from pictures of a crime, but that someone had nothing to do with commissioning the crime or any foreknowledge of it, that person is not responsible for the crime in any way."
No. No. No. Your logic is fucked. Completely. Foreknowledge? If a pedophile is viewing those pictures that's "foreknowledge" of it's existence right there. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that you think a person shouldn't be held responsible for the possession of child pornography.
07/14/09
@millelilly: There is no secret market for child porn. Just like there are no secret cabals commissioning snuff porn as seen in some fiction. If you read up on cases of child porn arrests and convictions, child porn rings getting busted and the like, you'll find it's just people sharing pictures and videos for free, much like Napster back in the day. People who make child porn just get off on showing what they did to the world, like serial killers who brag, or well, flashers. Criminalizing the mere possession of child porn is like criminalizing people who collect serial killer memorabilia, or making it illegal for people to look at flashers.
Decriminalize the possession of drugs? Sounds good to me!
07/14/09
Second, you say that making something illegal does not eliminate it. Do you really think that is a reason to keep it legal? Rape and murder are illegal, yet they happen everyday. Do you think they should be made legal simply because they still occur?
I really hope nothing I said came out too bitchy, I am just trying to point out the fallacies I see in your argument.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
To your first point, I guess that depends on how far you think the law should go in criminalizing things that may encourage future crimes. Although there really is no lucrative market for child porn.
Second point: I only meant criminalizing the possession of child porn will not discourage the real crime: child rape. Criminalizing things too far down the chain of crime does nothing to stop the alpha crime.
07/14/09
Also, by making possession of child porn illegal, you are in fact making it easier to find the victims. It allows the authorities to confiscate hard drives, enter photos into databases, and track kids down.
Finally, I'm curious to hear your opinion on the Butner prison study. 85% of men, who had been convicted solely of possessing child pornography, admitted to molesting a child in the past. There had an average of 13 victims per man. And it's difficult to run a trial for molestation. You put a child through a lot when he has to explain exactly where Uncle Eddie put his hands and dick.
If this new study from Switzerland shows anything, it's that being CONVICTED of possessing child porn decreased the likelihood of men then going on to molest children. Not that people who only possess child porn wouldn't ever molest children. Perhaps jail time, or therapy really helps these people.
More likely though, if taken together with the Butner study, it might simply mean that the people who have only ever been convicted of possessing child porn, and not molestation are very good to hiding what "hands-on" things they do to kids, which is why they've never been cuaght before, and why it's unlikely they'll be caught again. It doesn't say these people never go on to molest children, it says they weren't convicted of it.
07/14/09
07/14/09
I say lock 'em up.
07/14/09
07/14/09
Also, I heard that people with migraines have, on average, higher libidos than people who don't.
But, if we take birth control pills, we are more likely to have a stroke....
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
The stroke thing is one reason why I never went on the pill, I'm very paranoid and have had hideous migraines since the onset of my period.
07/14/09
I'm confused: the title says that us wimminz with migraines are less likely, but then the text says that "women prone to migraines are 74% as likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than those who have never suffered from migraines, a new study says."
Which is right?!
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Either way, as someone who was recently banned from estrogen due to a history of FOUR migraines (wtf? why didn't anyone say anything the first nine years I was on the pill?), I will be the proud owner of a Mirena in a week! We'll see what happens then, you migraine bastards!
07/14/09