[CHANDLERS WISH]

Harlee welcome to the Forum.

So if I read this right, you are talking about "cartoon" kiddie porn. Where some will state it is "art" but I don't feel that it is, after all they are drawing or using children in a pornigraphic way.

Secondly, I am not sure if he could be charged, it is "cartoon" charaters, they may monitor but he is not looking at child pornography he can claim "art".

Thirdly, a 2 year old and a 4 year old would be monitored yes? Supervised on a computer with ABC, not left sitting there to accidently come across it, the 2 year old would need monitoring purely and simply as not to fall of the chair or press the wrong keys, break the computer possibly the same with the 4 year old.

I think you are in shock to make that comment that children that young may come across it, as surely they are not left alone sitting by a computer?

I gather as one is yours and one is his, the 2 year old is his and therefore, you haven't been together very long, possibly 3 years.

How old are you both? If you don't mind me asking. I understand your concern but my understanding is a pediaphile starts with fantasy before acting or never acts... These cartoons maybe a way of fantasy without acting.. So like I said, he may not in the act of law committed a crime if he can state that he views it as art.

Still disturbing and I understand the immediate course of action is to ensure the children are no where near him.

Have you spoken to him at all about it? "Work" says "art" "creating" "money" in my opinion.

What is his justification? For your own closure you need to know his thoughts on this.

You are doing the right thing as far as taking the kids out of this.

Are you married?

I am just confused over he has an IPad so he has privacy but uses the family computer and then the children are 2 and 4, using a computer instead of TV?

If you would explain that to our members that would help us considerably.

CW

[Stillness]

I had some of the same thoughts as CW. I couldn't tell whether or not the incestuous pornography was cartoon or an actual child. If it's an actual child then I understand everything. If it's all cartoons he drew, then I understand everything except calling the police. For me to call the police on a family member without them harming anyone would be unthinkable, especially if it were my wife and the mother of my children.

I'm not excusing how disgusting the stuff is. I would just think really long and hard against taking an action that may mess up his life forever, let alone have a lasting impact on your baby. There are a bunch of people in this internet age, including me, who have seen and been entertained by things we'd never in a million years actually engage in.

[Harmony]

I had some of the same thoughts as CW. I couldn't tell whether or not the incestuous pornography was cartoon or an actual child. If it's an actual child then I understand everything. If it's all cartoons he drew, then I understand everything except calling the police. For me to call the police on a family member without them harming anyone would be unthinkable, especially if it were my wife and the mother of my children.

I'm not excusing how disgusting the stuff is. I would just think really long and hard against taking an action that may mess up his life forever, let alone have a lasting impact on your baby. There are a bunch of people in this internet age, including me, who have seen and been entertained by things we'd never in a million years actually engage in.

This ^. Being a pedophile is NOT illegal. Abusing children is.

Gay people didn't choose to be gay, I didn't choose to be heterosexual, nor did I choose to have a shoe fetish, but I've got one. I believe the former to be facts. This means that fate is the reason I am not sexually attracted to children.

You're right to be concerned for your children. A video or a picture of sexual activity with a minor (child porn) is illegal because it is evidence of child abuse. I'm not sure of the law regarding child cartoon porn but I do know it is not evidence of sexual abuse.

Read 'understanding and addressing adult sexual attraction to children'.

[rcoreyus]

If this is cartoons (eg, no real children are involved), and you have no reason to think he has abused the children, then I would not recommend calling the police. This will destroy his life - for looking a drawings.

You have every right to throw him out of the house, but in our society being labeled a sex offender is a horrible punishment. Reasonable for someone who has actually hurt a child, but for looking at drawings?????

[SpankedWife]

He's collecting (maybe making?) cartoon child porn because he knows it's not illegal. You've got a pedophile there. You need to tell his parents what you found. You need to keep those kids away from him. I would notify the police right away.

[Harmony]

It is in any good mother's instinct to react here in a manner which serves as the best protection for her children.

Any man who is collecting child porn is a pedophile, there is no other explanation.

A pedophile at least presents a potential threat to children, however, as of yet, unless there is evidence of abuse, he hasn't committed a crime (yet?) per se.

It sounds like he IS a pedophile, a pedophile who didn't choose to be afflicted with the sexual preferences he has. He could have been using animated child porn to affect his secret sexual preferences in the most harmless possible way. Many gay men repress their homosexual inclinations throughout their entire lives, or the majority of them. I'm not saying abusing children is acceptable it most certainly is NOT, abuse ruins lives and needs to be stopped; proactive measures, not reactive measures, need to be implemented to stop it.

If he is a pedophile who hasn't abused any children and is using animated porn to vent the sexual frustrations he is afflicted with then you do not have a criminal I'm afraid. You have a sad and unfortunate man who is secretly trying to live with an awful, socially unacceptable fetish he has been cursed with.

You have EVERY right to be shocked and frightened, and to want to protect our children, in fact you should take measures to protect yourself from them, but until there is evidence of abuse there is no crime.

I sincerely hope for everyone's sake there has been no abuse. I think in the interests of fairness you should first establish whether or not any abuse has taken place.

Once you are armed with the facts, then act accordingly, but not before you have the facts. I do sincerely hope no abuse has taken place.



Any action taken can only be preventative, based on what he may well do, and not on what he has done.

[rcoreyus]

Unfortunately law enforcement reacts in a very draconian fashion to this sort of thing. I was involved in a situation (not under suspicion my self) where a social worker accused the member of a family (not a parent) of abuse. The 2 children (5 and 11) were immediately taken out of their home, and kept away for over a YEAR while child protective services tried to figure out if anything had happened. No one claimed either of the parents was involved. Medical and psychological tests indicated that there had been no abuse. I actually had evidence that the accusation was made out of malice (for an unrelated issues) but social services and law enforcement had not interest. Their idea was "protect the children at all costs", even if that meant keeping them away from their parents.

I have no idea what happened to the accused person - I hope they are not rotting in prison now, because I'm convinced that there was no abuse.

I don't know the legality of child-porn drawings, but they may be illegal. Porn that involves adults made-up to look like children is illegal.

[Harmony]

Unfortunately law enforcement reacts in a very draconian fashion to this sort of thing. I was involved in a situation (not under suspicion my self) where a social worker accused the member of a family (not a parent) of abuse. The 2 children (5 and 11) were immediately taken out of their home, and kept away for over a YEAR while child protective services tried to figure out if anything had happened. No one claimed either of the parents was involved. Medical and psychological tests indicated that there had been no abuse. I actually had evidence that the accusation was made out of malice (for an unrelated issues) but social services and law enforcement had not interest. Their idea was "protect the children at all costs", even if that meant keeping them away from their parents.

I have no idea what happened to the accused person - I hope they are not rotting in prison now, because I'm convinced that there was no abuse.

I don't know the legality of child-porn drawings, but they may be illegal. Porn that involves adults made-up to look like children is illegal.

While abuse is common (I believe the statistic is 1 in 3 children have experienced some degree of abuse in one shape or form or another) I personally know 3 men (and I'm 100% confident there was no abuse, there was also no evidence) whose partners have made accusations of abuse, or alluded to suspicion of abuse so they can automatically win custody of the children. Had the men reciprocated the children would have immediately gone into 3rd party care full time.

You cannot really blame government agencies for choosing to err on the side of caution, but the system is wide open to abuse and injustices regularly occur on all sides. Many children experience abuse in forms which aren't sexual such as emotional abuse and varying degree of neglect. Obviously sexual abuse invokes the fiercest of responses.

As I said earlier I just hope there has been no abuse.

[jns]

A choice between doing nothing, leaving (with the children) but saying nothing, becoming your own police force by investigating the situation or turning things over to the real police. The police are tasked with doing legal investigations. If it was a fire, I would say to get a fireman. If it was bees, I would get a person trained in working with bees. Why do people think they would be better at doing some of these things than the professionals?

So many kids get sexually abused by someone in the neighborhood that they don't know is a sexual predator. So now you suspect there may be more to the story and still roll the dice? How about the scandal in the Catholic church where predator priests were moved when reports came in? How about the uncle that some know has been accused, but no one wanted to do anything about? Is it truly that person's fault or is it also the fault of the family and society around that person?

I stand by what I said. There is hard evidence that has to be legally analyzed to see if any laws have been broken. As for the mother and children, if there is smoke, don't ignore it. Get to a safe place to evaluate what is going on.

[SpankedWife]

The police act "draconian"? By protecting innocent children from predators? I was a victim of sexual abuse and am a mom of two. I'll take draconian over passivity any day.