BAN THE PEDOPHILE

[sexeducation]

John Beacock claims that his site is not a "porn site", but rather an educational site. Let's take a look.

I don't claim my website is an educational site.
It is a magazine of global sexual intercourse.
More specifically a magazine which invokes discussion about controversial sexual topics. You claim it to be "educational" whereas my Access Policy clearly states it is for "entertainment".



Currently on his site there are many graphics that are showing up as red X's which have the text
Increase graphic sizes by turning on advertising banners. Get maximum size graphics with a FREE AVS Membership!
So his site is "educational", yet he is encouraging visitors to sign up for an Adult Verification Service where they will have access to thousands of porn sites.

SexEducation.com has been 100% anonymous since inception and will remain that way. In some countries of the world women are stoned to death just for showing their ankles.
Anonymity is a priority for SexEducation.com.
Hence, I will NEVER agree to 2% of gross sales with Acacia because it really means "we don't believe you show me your books."

He currently quotes many emails allegedly from children (and he states their ages). Here is one answer he gave to an alleged child of 11 years old:
Well, guess what ? Even infants masturbate. Huh ! Ya - that is right. Most boys and girls masturbate (play with themselves). They do not know the word masturbation but they know it feels good.

In fact us boys can get an erection pretty much the day we are born. So don't worry if you played with yourself before you say you started puberty. I am not encouraging this - just saying it will not harm you in anyway.

Girls do it too. Yes in the bath tub or have you ever seen a girl rocking on a rocking horse ? Is she going somewhere or rubbing herself on it ? You decide.

Yes - it is a scientific fact that infants have erections and play with themselves. They don't know what they are doing - but they do - do it.
I guess you have never changed a male infants diaper with an erection.
Grow up ... grow up... Every Parent has seen their infant child with an erection. Grow up ... like yawn ...
You disgust me ...


I don't know about you guys, but I do not plan to tell my sons when they are 11 that little girls on rocking horses are rubbing themselves for sexual stimulation. THIS is the type of responsible education that he is giving to children?

My website is not for children. It is a resource of material that Parents choose which article they wish to adapt to their own needs. But when you get a tough question - from your teen - I betcha you can find a "tough" type answer on SexEducation.com [Caveat - the site is broken right now.]

His site currently references background images and videos from unlicensed sources - ie: the "infamous Ally McBeal kiss" (video) and a fully scanned cover of Time magazine.

Many of those will be coming back under "fair use" of a magazine that performs sexual research. I am waiting for this Acacia thing to blow over.

His site that is not "porn" did at one time feature videos from IDeepThroat.com. These videos were publically accessible and he claimed that he was using them for educational purposes.

Heather at IDeepThroat.com ( A mother) gave me permission to use her content. She is still on my contact list. Yes - Adult women want to know how to do that. In fact, increasingly so as the adult industry continued to post that type of material on their directly accessed domain names ( which I am against). The adult industry helped to make many women feel inadequate because all they say was the extreme shit when the went looking for the physical knowledge of how to perform sex. In fact, on Xbiz I am engaged in a discussion about this right now.



[i]
This is a quote of him stating that his site is not porn:
Posting a generic blurb about 2257 on my homepage - gives a wrong impression on what the site is about. SexEducation.com is not a "porn" site - by any definition of "pornography"
The discussion of porn sites and the discussion of the graphics inherently means you have to post some of that.





I do not know how to link directly to a specific post, so I instead have hit the "Quote" button on those posts and will be linking to those 'quote' pages.

Here he admits to having a picture of a nude minor on his site, and claims that he does not need 2257 info for the picture because since she is underage, her parents cannot sign for her photo to be released.

The article "Child Pornography - A Photo Essay by Dad@" discusses how minors can sue ANY WEBSITE which profited from the exposure of her likeness for profit. Then ended in a challenge to George W. Bush to do something about WhiteHouse.com. I won. That article is still talked about until this day and now that fucking porn site "WhiteHouse.com" is WHITEHOUSESEX.COM ...roflmao ... they got toasted by a Master Blogger.
Dad@




Here again he admits to having a picture of a nude minor, and states that it was one of 16 that he downloaded "from several sources". He states that the child is "several years old".

I don't have any graphics now.
Posting a picture of a minor is not illegal in Canada.
If it was - then you could not post the diagrams of how to change a diaper, breast feeding, male infant circumcision etc ...
grow the fuck up ...
what hypocrisy you show ...
and you're a "playa" ...roflmao





In this quote, he reposts an article he had on his website entitled "Child Pornography - A Pictoral Essay". At the time of publishing, this article was enhanced, as the title states, by images of child pornography. They have since been removed. In the article he says:
At what age does the female body become acceptable to display?
Well at any age - duh : )
The real legal question is - at what age can a person sell their likeness for profit?
He then goes on to question whether a child "selling" photographs of themselves for candy or toys should be considered "legal".
He finishes this "essay" off by stating:
The answer is - YES : ) There is a legal basis for minors to sue for compensation and punitive damages, if their identity is used for commercial profit.

EXPLAINED ABOVE ....


Note that he only makes a caveat for commercial profit, but not for the perverted personal collection that was never intended to be distributed commercially.

grow up ...
or go after all diaper commercials ...
and 11 year old models in the Sears Catelogue



In this quote he is directly asked some very interesting questions, and gives his answers. He admits to NOT having the 2257 information for all models appearing in explicit images in his site, and then says that it is not illegal to post pictures of nude children in his home country of Canada.

YA ... When I bought the Corel Draw 100,000 clip art collection and used it's graphics - they did not have to be 2257 compliant ...


In this quote he admits to having pictures of minors on his site that were nude, and that children and teens CAN access his member's section "with adult supervision".

The site is/was fully customizable to a Parent's wishes.
Graphics on or off.
Advertising on or off.
almost everything can be blocked or modified.
The site is for Parents not for children like yourself.


TEXT DELETED ...
BORING



SexEd, don't ever call me a fucking liar. I come with PROOF.


You said I had graphics of children engaged in sexual acts ...
POST THE FUCKING PROOF YOU FUCKING LIAR ...

You said I admitted I was a pedophile ...
POST THE FUCKING PROOF YOU FUCKING LIAR ...

YOU SHOULD BE BANNED AS YOU HAVE BROKE SERGE'S NUMBER ONE RULE.
Plain and simple ...