Advocate's Useful Stuff

ok, before you tell me what a sick bastard i am and alert the authorities and all that, let's get some things straight:

1. i DO NOT in any way shape or form condone or encourage any kind of child pornography whatsoever. period.

2. i am using child pornography (CP) as an example because it is the most horrific and disgusting thing i can think of.

3. child porn disgusts me, actually makes my stomach hurt. if you are sexually attracted to children, you need to talk to a professional about that and deal with whatever issues you have. no matter how much you lie to yourself, the kid does NOT want to have sex with you. it's rape.

4. cp is not "art" no matter how hard you try to justify it. nothing artistic about a kid with her legs spread open.

4. in the arguement, i will be asking why *i* can't have pics of naked kids. this is for the arguement ONLY. i do not really want pics of naked kids. i am not saying this with a wink and a nod, like hacking info is for "entertainment purposes only." really, child porn makes me angry and nauseous.

are we clear? if you have any doubts, please re-read above. i want to have an intelligent thougth experiment here, ok?

so...for this arguement, the parameters are:

1. by CP i mean pictures of naked kids (14 years old and under) in sexually suggestive positions. porn positions. also kids engaged in a sex act.

2. the actual making of the porn should be illegal, the adults who are taking the pictures or engaged in the sex act with the child should be arrested. that is not in question.

so the question is: is having cp wrong? lets say some adult likes looking at pics of naked kids. why is it wrong to have the pictures, if he ("he" also means she) did not take the pics? what if the adult surfs around the intenet, finds the pics and downloads them, and looks at them in his house, alone. why is that wrong?

murder is wrong, but i can have all the pics of dead people i want. drugs are illegal, but i can have pics of people taking drugs. why can't i have pics of naked kids? why is having a picture that i did not take and i had nothing to do with illegal and wrong?

one arguement against is "cp won't happen if people wouldn't want it." this is false. you can get cp for free, so it's not like people are making money. even if no one wanted to look at it, there would be some guy who likes it and wants to share his hobby and post it/spread it around.

another arguement is "looking at it leads to doing it." i play violent video games where i kill people. i look at violent movies. i look at pictures of dead people and read books about murders. i have not and will not kill someone. same with theft, and other illegal activities. i can look at pictures of naked kids all day and still not want to have sex with them or take pictures of naked kids. so that arguement does not work.

so...the question....why is it wrong if i have child pornography?

discuss....

Willravel · 07-14-2007, 12:00 AM

Child pornography is wrong based on the understanding that children cannot give reasonable consent because they haven't developed the cognitive ability to comprehend what they're consenting to so far as sexuality. That's the reason behind statutory rape, and the idea behind preventing kiddy porn is the creation of and subsequent purchasing of the child pornography is abuse. From those who are taking the picture to those who look at them, they're all in the business of exploiting the children.

squeeeb · 07-14-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Child pornography is wrong based on the understanding that children cannot give reasonable consent because they haven't developed the cognitive ability to comprehend what they're consenting to so far as sexuality. That's the reason behind statutory rape, and the idea behind preventing kiddy porn is the creation of and subsequent purchasing of the child pornography is abuse. From those who are taking the picture to those who look at them, they're all in the business of exploiting the children.

i'll go and assume the kid did NOT consent to the picture, and re-state that the making of the porn is wrong. i don't see how looking at a picture of a crime makes me guilty.

if i look at pictures of murder victims, am i involved in the murder? i don't think so. if i look at a picture of a naked kid, taken 50 years ago, did i exploit that child? i don't see how. it's just a picture. why is having that picture wrong?

Charlatan · 07-14-2007, 01:50 AM

In the photo of a murder, the murder is the crime, not the photo. Therefore, the photo, while possibly tasteless, is not implicated in the crime.

In child photography, the photo itself is the crime. It is in the act of taking a picture of a child that commits the crime (amongst other things). In viewing the photo, your are implicated in sharing in the crime.

It doesn't matter if it was taken yesterday or 50 years ago. It's still participating in a crime.

Shauk · 07-14-2007, 02:01 AM

half the 18 year old girls on the internet who spread clams for thier ex boyfriends probably didn't consent to the picture being posted on the internet either. Is it simply "ok" because the viewer doesn't know any better?

I dunno, the lines between ok and not ok are pretty bendable, moral is subjective, people justify downloading music all the time and want the RIAA and MPAA's heads on a stick over them trying to enforce copyright law. The only reason child porn is considered "bad" is because the society we're in tries to protect/preserve innocence for some reason, be it preventing them from being exposed to violence, porn, swear language, or whatever.

fact of the matter is if you left society and civilization out of it and went straight to the biology of the situation, Humans are STILL a race that have sex for pleasure without the intent to reproduce. One of two species if I remember.

I'm not defending child porn though, I certainly don't have any interest in seeing underdeveloped females in whatever act thier photographer convinced them would be a good idea.

now, there were 13/14 y/o's that I mistook for at LEAST 17 when I was an 18 year old. from a biology standpoint, that would indicate they had developed something which appealed to my base instinct to mate, for pleasure or for reproduction, who knows? its subconscious. perhaps some would argue that our standards for beauty are "conditioned" by what we see in our parents, on tv, and other influences, some would just argue that its genetics.

this is a very very complicated subject if you dive beneath the surface.

that being said, again, I don't want to watch child porn, I don't condone it, but i'd be lying if I said there wasn't a point in my life where a 13 year old didn't make me feel funny during my time of puberty. If you get what i'm saying, politely as I can.

anyways, it's also a fairly easy cause to "champion" as raiding some weird dudes house and computer isn't exactly "in the line of fire" unlike violence and drugs. It's easy to look like you have a handle on the situation when most of the people who participate in such acts are really just failing to be fully integrated in to societal norms, not particularly violent or cruel.

I think every culture is different, some countries show nudity on public access television, some dont, some legalize drugs, some dont, some have low age restrictions on sex, some dont.

you could take amsterdam for example as "different" but I dunno if you can say either stance is "right" since right is merely opinion.

if they really wanted to sterilize crime and the psychological influence it has on convincing the kind of people who commit said crimes to do them, they wouldn't have anything beyond PG rated movies in this country, and it would be the equivlant of an R rating now.

personally, I kinda wonder if people who are psychologically fucked in the head from being previously sexually abused are only that way because people treated them like they were a victim, or a freak, that alone has its own psychological implications.

katyg · 07-14-2007, 03:29 AM

The media is obsessed with youth, I personally feel that the explosion in child pornography is a natural progression of our perverted society - everything young, pretty is deemed cool, sexy etc and so men search for harder stuff, younger stuff, until they sometimes end up here. It scares me, I feel that society has gone wrong somewhere. It's not right, however we look at it. Children should be innocent as long as possible, people should grow up and be nurtured, not salivated over.

Shauk · 07-14-2007, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katyg

The media is obsessed with youth, I personally feel that the explosion in child pornography is a natural progression of our perverted society - everything young, pretty is deemed cool, sexy etc and so men search for harder stuff, younger stuff, until they sometimes end up here. It scares me, I feel that society has gone wrong somewhere. It's not right, however we look at it. Children should be innocent as long as possible, people should grow up and be nurtured, not salivated over.

not to say you are wrong, but... why?

I wonder why people adopt the beliefs that they do.

I could say this post perfectly outlines my example of the typical american culture belief set.

cybersharp · 07-14-2007, 03:59 AM

Not that I am advocating it, but I make the very obvious point that both "right and wrong" are each a matter of perspective. The different perspective of peoples coming from differentiating points of view. The beliefs of people are both inherent and based upon experience through the society in which they where educated.

Willravel · 07-14-2007, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

i'll go and assume the kid did NOT consent to the picture, and re-state that the making of the porn is wrong. i don't see how looking at a picture of a crime makes me guilty.

if i look at pictures of murder victims, am i involved in the murder? i don't think so. if i look at a picture of a naked kid, taken 50 years ago, did i exploit that child? i don't see how. it's just a picture. why is having that picture wrong?

Having/buying/viewing that picture is a part of the process by which the child was exploited. You are exploiting the child by looking at the child being exploited.

tecoyah · 07-14-2007, 05:35 AM

If you knowingly buy a stolen television you will be charged with a crime, as you have willingly advanced the trade in stolen goods. Very few in this society consider theft a good thing, therefore we make laws that create an adverse atmosphere in hopes of stopping the action. Similarly, society does not find the exploitation of children acceptable, thus laws were created to quell the practice. The stigma attached to those who trade in this aspect of sexuality is also a direct result of the general disgust most people feel towards such action.
In short, yes it is wrong....our society says so. If you wish to dwell in the society it is highly recommended you pay attention to its taboos.

Push-Pull · 07-14-2007, 08:05 AM

Perhaps we could expand this to include those that use "look-alikes". Even though everyone is of age, and the persons obtaining such porn are not techincally breaking the law, is it still "wrong"?

On one hand, it seems that the end user has gone to length to be sure that nothing illegal has transpired.

One the other hand, I could never see myself considering it "acceptable".

squeeeb · 07-14-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

In the photo of a murder, the murder is the crime, not the photo. Therefore, the photo, while possibly tasteless, is not implicated in the crime.

In child photography, the photo itself is the crime. It is in the act of taking a picture of a child that commits the crime (amongst other things). In viewing the photo, your are implicated in sharing in the crime.

It doesn't matter if it was taken yesterday or 50 years ago. It's still participating in a crime.

excellent point! it brings up the question....*is* the photo the crime or is it only evidence of the crime? if the photo is the crime, why? isn't the act the crime, and the photo proof of the crime? what makes the photo the crime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Push-Pull

Perhaps we could expand this to include those that use "look-alikes". Even though everyone is of age, and the persons obtaining such porn are not techincally breaking the law, is it still "wrong"?

On one hand, it seems that the end user has gone to length to be sure that nothing illegal has transpired.

One the other hand, I could never see myself considering it "acceptable".

i don't see how "look-alikes" would be wrong, or actually relevant to the original question of child porn. if a 25 year old girl looks 12, that's just a fantasy role, like people who dress up as cops or nurses or animals or whatever. i'm not dismissing or shooting you down, i just don't see your point. could you explain further in case i'm missing something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Having/buying/viewing that picture is a part of the process by which the child was exploited. You are exploiting the child by looking at the child being exploited.

ok, then that goes along with charlatan's point of the picture as well as the act is the crime. at least i think that is your point? correct me if i misunderstand.

Willravel · 07-14-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

ok, then that goes along with charlatan's point of the picture as well as the act is the crime. at least i think that is your point? correct me if i misunderstand.

Bingo. Having the picture is exploiting the child sexually, which is a crime. Having the actual feelings, which is a more interesting part of this, is not a crime but suggests possible mental illness.

Push-Pull · 07-14-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

i don't see how "look-alikes" would be wrong, or actually relevant to the original question of child porn. if a 25 year old girl looks 12, that's just a fantasy role, like people who dress up as cops or nurses or animals or whatever. i'm not dismissing or shooting you down, i just don't see your point. could you explain further in case i'm missing something?

I supposed I was questioning the morality of it given that people who partake in it skirt around the law while still getting their kicks. Either way, you're right, this is material for a different thread.

katyg · 07-14-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

not to say you are wrong, but... why?

I wonder why people adopt the beliefs that they do.

I could say this post perfectly outlines my example of the typical american culture belief set.

Iam confused, are you sayin my belief set is typically american in it's outlook?

MexicanOnABike · 07-14-2007, 04:47 PM

what's interesting is: are drawings of naked kids wrong? would having a massive collection of cp but in drawing form be illegal? it's the same thing but without harming the kids in any way.

i'm saying this because KILLING someone is illegal right? but wanting to kill someone and doing it in a video game is completely fine. so this is like saying, I love killing people on my computer just like watching cp on my computer should be fine.

i guess i don't know why it's so wrong to watch. i understand acting on it but it shouldn't be that much of a problem the other way.

what do you think?

squeeeb · 07-14-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MexicanOnABike

what's interesting is: are drawings of naked kids wrong? would having a massive collection of cp but in drawing form be illegal? it's the same thing but without harming the kids in any way.

i'm saying this because KILLING someone is illegal right? but wanting to kill someone and doing it in a video game is completely fine. so this is like saying, I love killing people on my computer just like watching cp on my computer should be fine.

i guess i don't know why it's so wrong to watch. i understand acting on it but it shouldn't be that much of a problem the other way.

what do you think?

drawings are up there with the "look alikes." drawings aren't even real, and they aren't illegal, which is why there is tons of child porn art, computer generated and drawn, all over the intarwebz.

Psycho Dad · 07-14-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Having the actual feelings... suggests possible mental illness.

I'll see your possible and raise you a probable.

Myself, I see it as a "to each his own" as far as sexual, kinks, fetishes and interests. Except when it comes to anything involuntary. And I'd most certainly doubt anyone, anywhere could ever convince me that any child would wish to or ever has participated in their own exploitation.

And I'd also argue that the SOB who aspires to own child pornography is worse that the asshole that makes it. IMHO, the producer of this shit is driven by greed, not a sickening attraction to an innocent child.

squeeeb · 07-14-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

I'll see your possible and raise you a probable.

Myself, I see it as a "to each his own" as far as sexual, kinks, fetishes and interests. Except when it comes to anything involuntary. And I'd most certainly doubt anyone, anywhere could ever convince me that any child would wish to or ever has participated in their own exploitation.

And I'd also argue that the SOB who aspires to own child pornography is worse that the asshole that makes it. IMHO, the producer of this shit is driven by greed, not a sickening attraction to an innocent child.

gotta disagree with you on that one. the dude who makes it is a deluded sick individual who doesn't realize he is fucking that kid up for life and isn't doing it for money or greed, he is driven by an unnatural sexual attraction to children. they don't sell the shit, they trade it. it's not about money.

Crack · 07-14-2007, 10:01 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8

subject of a routine

Nimetic · 07-15-2007, 01:41 AM

It is an interesting point.

However - out of respect, I would suggest that pictures of murder victims should also be restricted. I would like to think that if I was murdered, my picture - potentially naked/muliated and taken without permission, could not be splashed around the place.

This true. But unsatisfying philosophically. Don't you think?

I mean - it's no good arguing that something should not be done, because it breaks a taboo. Exposing an ankle might be against a taboo. Women going out without without a black tent might be against a taboo. See where I'm headed.

Ok though, while the taboo thing falls flat - I agree with you re participation in a crime. But there's perhaps two aspects. The legal aspect and the moral aspect.

tecoyah · 07-15-2007, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

And I'd also argue that the SOB who aspires to own child pornography is worse that the asshole that makes it. IMHO, the producer of this shit is driven by greed, not a sickening attraction to an innocent child.

Excellent point, and one I did not consider. Regardless though, the production of such material is illegal in this country, and therefore subject to law. The reasoning behind such legislation is akin to anti-slavery laws in a way, as both try to protect individuals unable to protect themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Ok though, while the taboo thing falls flat - I agree with you re participation in a crime. But there's perhaps two aspects. The legal aspect and the moral aspect.

Taboo is relative to the culture you find yourself in, and cannot be disregarded while living within said culture. If someone dislikes the taboo, they must either leave the society that has it, or deal with the results of breaking the taboo if found out. There are no third choices in this I am aware of, as changing taboo is very difficult, and takes huge amounts of time.

katyg · 07-15-2007, 12:35 PM

Isn't this really a debate about moral realism? And therefore whether there are some things that are inherently *right* or *wrong*?

Basically some of these posts seem to question whether just because the bulk of a society finds something abhorrent should we all?

I believe that even if the whole world thought kiddie porn was *ok* I would still find something wrong with it - I have mentioned before on here that I find hardcore porn offensive anyway and in the current sexual climate it seems more and more acceptable. Therefore there are people who even when something is found more acceptable by society they still question it's morality.

ASU2003 · 07-15-2007, 09:36 PM

I think it is a grey area for sure. And there are different severities to the pictures. A picture of an adult having sex with a girl under 16 is wrong and should be illegal. A 14 year old guy having a picture of his 14 year old girl friend should not be illegal. But if an adult forced or paid two kids to have sex, then that is wrong. And it should be ok if I took a picture of myself when I was 12 and kept the picture. Basically, I would think that if the person wasn't forced into it and it is just softcore, nude pictures, it isn't that big of a deal. Hardcore, rape, compensated, or forced pictures involving minors should be illegal and the people that look at them need to get help.

The problem is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I wouldn't want to look at cp because the jail time/fine plus being branded as a sex offender for a long time. Your whole life gets f’ed up. You might get disowned by your family, your friends, co-workers, spouse,… And you might not have even done anything. I always question when some politician gets caught with this on their computer if it wasn’t just planted. Because they lose all believability once this information gets out there.

But, I could fly to some foreign countries and pay some young girls for sex or just to pose nude for me and the law doesn't have a problem with that. Just so I don’t take pictures or video tape it.* (*I personally wouldn’t do this, but a TV show uncovered this happening)

Here is another situation. I was at a nude beach one time and it was pretty busy. After about 30 minutes or so, a family with two kids under 10 put down their towels about 20 feet away from me. If I had a picture of them, I could go to jail (although it was a public place...). But since I just saw them in person (because you can't look down all the time) it isn't a problem with the law.

And it is a good thing we don't have thought-crimes yet, because I imagined Hilary Duff naked and doing certain things with her well before she turned 18... And that shouldn’t be a crime.

Deltona Couple · 07-16-2007, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

But, I could fly to some foreign countries and pay some young girls for sex or just to pose nude for me and the law doesn't have a problem with that. Just so I don’t take pictures or video tape it.* (*I personally wouldn’t do this, but a TV show uncovered this happening)

Here is another situation. I was at a nude beach one time and it was pretty busy. After about 30 minutes or so, a family with two kids under 10 put down their towels about 20 feet away from me. If I had a picture of them, I could go to jail (although it was a public place...). But since I just saw them in person (because you can't look down all the time) it isn't a problem with the law.

Actually, in almost all countries that have a lower than 16 year age of consent, it IS illegal to go there and pay a "child" to have sex and film it. Many contries are working VERY hard on discouraging this type of activity THANK GOD. I abhore those who want to do this, because it does seriously affect that childs future development. However there IS a huge cloud of "gray area" when it comes to child porn. You mentioned being on a nude beach with a family. ACTUALLY if you DID have a photo, then it WOULNDT be considered child porn by federal standards. Child pornography is clasified as EXPLOITIVE photography involving sexually suggestive, or where the photograph is predominantly focused on the genitals of the subject. So if the photo wasn't of the children doing anything sexually suggestive, or you didnt 'zoom in' on their privates, it is NOT child porn; HOWEVER like I had said, it is a gray area that is open to interpretation of the judge and jury in the case, if it were to ever come to light. I mention this because of a case in Florida at Playa Linda Beach. Playa Linda is a nude beach in Florida, near Cape Canaveral. The case involved a man who's family (himself, wife, and 3 children) attended regularly, and the family had pictures of their trips to the beach on their home computer. The computer was sent in for repairs, and the repair facility reported the images as child porn. When the case went to court, it was determined that since the photos were NOT exploitive, nor sexual in nature, the case was dropped. however the family had to move because of the negative publicity involved. It was all over the news at the time, and this thread just reminded me of that situation.

mixedmedia · 07-16-2007, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Here is another situation. I was at a nude beach one time and it was pretty busy. After about 30 minutes or so, a family with two kids under 10 put down their towels about 20 feet away from me. If I had a picture of them, I could go to jail (although it was a public place...). But since I just saw them in person (because you can't look down all the time) it isn't a problem with the law.

A picture of a nude child is not automatically considered child pornography. It is pictures of children involved in sexual activity that is illegal.

oops...I see DC just covered that.

Redlemon · 07-16-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

But, I could fly to some foreign countries and pay some young girls for sex or just to pose nude for me and the law doesn't have a problem with that. Just so I don’t take pictures or video tape it.* (*I personally wouldn’t do this, but a TV show uncovered this happening)

Did you open the newspaper today?

Quote:

http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_197084103.html

'Sex Tourism' Trial To Begin In Philadelphia

(AP) PHILADELPHIA Seven years ago, Russian courts convicted a wealthy American motel owner of molesting children and sent him to prison, but later decided to just expel him.

The experience did little to keep Anthony "Mark" Bianchi stateside. Over the next few years, he traveled to Moldova, Romania, Cambodia and Cuba -- trips all designed, U.S. officials say, to recruit destitute boys for sexual trysts.

Bianchi, 44, of North Wildwood, N.J., was scheduled to go on trial Monday on charges he assaulted nearly a dozen minors on foreign soil. And this time -- under a largely untested 2003 law designed to thwart "sex tourism" -- he will be tried in federal court in Philadelphia.

...(story continues)

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

drawings are up there with the "look alikes." drawings aren't even real, and they aren't illegal, which is why there is tons of child porn art, computer generated and drawn, all over the intarwebz.

I believe that this is not entirely true. I seem to recall that there were a bunch of takedown notices for sites that involved written fiction (not even drawings) of child porn, or perhaps it was extreme torture. Something like that. Perhaps someone else recalls enough to track it down.

pornclerk · 07-17-2007, 11:26 AM

I think you may have already answered your own question (with many good reasons) about why child pornography is wrong.

Redlemon · 07-19-2007, 01:58 PM

How about today's New York Times article, Debate on Child Pornography’s Link to Molesting. (If you can reach that link, but you probably can't, so...

Quote:

By JULIAN SHER and BENEDICT CAREY
Published: July 19, 2007

Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.

A study of child pornographers was conducted at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, N.C.

The study, which has not yet been published, is stirring a vehement debate among psychologists, law enforcement officers and prison officials, who cannot agree on how the findings should be presented or interpreted.

The research, carried out by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is the first in-depth survey of such online offenders’ sexual behavior done by prison therapists who were actively performing treatment. Its findings have circulated privately among experts, who say they could have enormous implications for public safety and law enforcement.

Traffic in online child pornography has exploded in recent years, and the new study, some experts say, should be made public as soon as possible, to identify men who claim to be “just looking at pictures” but could, in fact, be predators.

Yet others say that the results, while significant, risk tarring some men unfairly. The findings, based on offenders serving prison time who volunteered for the study, do not necessarily apply to the large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography, and whose behavior is far too variable to be captured by a single survey.

Adding to the controversy, the prison bureau in April ordered the paper withdrawn from a peer-reviewed academic journal where it had been accepted for publication, apparently concerned that the results might be misinterpreted. A spokeswoman for the bureau said the agency was reviewing a study of child pornography offenders but declined to comment further.

Ernie Allen, who leads the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is mandated to coordinate the nation’s efforts to combat child pornography, said he was surprised that the full study had not been released. “This is the kind of research the public needs to know about,” Mr. Allen said. Others agreed that the report should be published but were more cautious about the findings. “The results could have tremendous implications for community safety and for individual liberties,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. “If people we thought were not dangerous are more so, then we need to know that and we should treat them that way. But if we’re wrong, then their liberties aren’t going to be fairly addressed.”

Everyone agrees that researchers need to learn more about online consumers of illegal child images. The volume of material seized from computers appears to be doubling each year — the National Center collected more than eight million images of explicit child pornography in the last five years — and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales made child protection a national priority in 2006.

Those who are arrested on charges of possession or distribution of child pornography generally receive lighter sentences and shorter parole periods than sexual abusers. They do not fit any criminal stereotype; recent arrests have included politicians, police officers, teachers and businessmen.

“It’s crucial to understand the sexual history of all these offenders, because sometimes the crime they were arrested for is the tip of the iceberg, and does not reflect their real patterns and interests,” said Jill S. Levenson, an assistant professor of human services at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., and head of the ethics committee of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Previous studies, based on surveys of criminal records, estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of those arrested for possessing child pornography also had molested children.

The psychologists who conducted the new study, Andres E. Hernandez and Michael L. Bourke, focused on 155 male inmates who had volunteered to be treated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C., according to a draft of the paper obtained by The New York Times from outside experts who want the study published.

The Butner clinic is the only residential program devoted to the treatment of sexual offenders in the federal prison system. The inmates in the study were all serving sentences for possession or distribution of child pornography.

About every six months as part of an 18-month treatment program, they filled out a record of their sexual history, including a “victims list” tallying their previous victims of abuse. Therapists encouraged the men to be honest as part of their treatment, and the sexual histories were anonymous, according to the paper.

The psychologists compared these confessions with the men’s criminal sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26 percent who were known to have committed any “hands on” offenses at sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims: 1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the men were sentenced.

Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke concluded in the paper that “many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters.” But they also cautioned that offenders who volunteer for treatment may differ in their behavior from those who do not seek treatment.

They submitted the paper to The Journal of Family Violence, a widely read peer-reviewed publication in the field, and it was accepted.

But in a letter obtained by The Times, dated April 3, Judi Garrett, an official of the Bureau of Prisons, requested that the editors of the journal withdraw the study, because it did not meet “agency approval.”

Editors at The Journal of Family Violence did not respond to phone or e-mail messages asking about the withdrawal.

Dr. Hernandez mentioned the research briefly during testimony before a Senate committee last year. But the bureau blocked Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke from attending some law enforcement conferences to speak about the findings, said two prosecutors who did not want to be identified because they have a continuing work relationship with the bureau.

“We believe it unwise to generalize from limited observations gained in treatment or in records review to the broader population of persons who engage in such behavior,” a bureau official wrote to the organizers of a recent law enforcement conference, in a letter dated May 2 and given to The Times by an expert who is hoping the study will be published.

Some prosecutors say they could use the study to argue for stiffer sentences. While some outside researchers agreed that the risk of over-generalizing the study’s results was real, almost all the experts interviewed also said that the study should still be made public.

Dr. Peter Collins, who leads the Forensic Psychiatry Unit of the Ontario Provincial Police, called the findings “cutting-edge stuff.”

“We’re really on the cusp of learning more about these individuals and studies should be encouraged, not quashed,” Dr. Collins said.

Understanding the relationship between looking at child pornography and sexually assaulting children is central to developing effective treatment, psychologists say.

It is not at all clear when, or in whom, the viewing spurs action or activates a latent, unconscious desire; or whether such images have little or no effect on the offender’s subsequent behavior. But the relationship probably varies widely.

“My concern is about sensationalism, about the way something like this is handled in the media,” said Michael Miner, an associate professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Minnesota who treats sex offenders. “The public perception is that all of these guys will re-offend, and we know that just isn’t true.”

At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires — exactly the opposite.

“Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”

How many offenders does he speak for? The study may help answer that question, some say.

“The penalties we seek, the vigor with which we prosecute — the very importance we give to child pornography cases — all of these things are affected by what we know about the offenders,” said Leura G. Canary, the United States attorney for Middle Alabama who also leads the Attorney General’s Working Group on Child Exploitation and Obscenity. “And right now we know very little.”

Deltona Couple · 07-20-2007, 04:54 AM

After reading that long article there I have thought about it and I feel that their calculations may be incorrect. There was no mention in ANY of the article that states if the criminals had molested said persons BEFORE or AFTER posessing the child pornography. So I am thinking the stats are skewed possibly. Did they get the pornography, and THEN decide to molest? or did they molest, and then decide that they wanted to porn AFTER the fact? There is not enough information in the study to back EITHER one. So I am not sure what this study actually proves other than the fact that many molesters also have the porn.... I do agree that child porn has become an epidemic of DISTURBING proportions! However I don't see this study having proven much of anything in what they APPEAR to be trying to say. I personally think that the penalties for possession of this should be MUCH more severe than it currently is.

squeeeb · 07-24-2007, 08:11 PM

At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires — exactly the opposite.

“Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”

to me, this means he was already bent towards that, and is using the porn as an excuse. i can look at child porn every day for a month, and even after vomiting a few times, i still wouldn't want to have sex with a kid. i don't find children attractive, and no amount of looking at them will change that. sure the porn fuels the fire, but the fire has to be there first.

mixedmedia · 07-25-2007, 03:24 AM

Pedophilia is a very compelling and obsessive mental disorder so I don't think it would be any surprise at all that those who view child pornography have also molested children in real life and/or vice versa. It's not a fringe thing that large numbers of people fool around with and look at on the internet for kicks. Just the act of searching for child pornography is a full-on manifestation of the desire to have sex with children.

newtonX · 08-11-2007, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

murder is wrong, but i can have all the pics of dead people i want. drugs are illegal, but i can have pics of people taking drugs. why can't i have pics of naked kids? why is having a picture that i did not take and i had nothing to do with illegal and wrong?

Actually, after thinking about for a little bit, having pictures of murder victims does sort of encourage murder. This is a little farfetched at first glance, but, instead of thinking about the internet, think about television. If a murderer knows that his "work" will be viewed by many, then he may be driven to kill merely for the sake of exposure. The procurement of child pornography is no doubt increasing the demand for such pictures. If the sickos that make this stuff know that their "work" will be viewed, it may very well drive them to make more. This alone is reason enough not to have such pictures. Also, the hedonistic nature of pornography makes having child pornography suspicious. Why would someone not interested in children have such pictures? There are very few believable reasons.

Racnad · 09-04-2007, 12:20 PM

Much of what is posted to the Internet is more for ego than financial gain. The big draw of youTube is posting your home video and a week later seeing 20,000 viewings. And who on TFP doesn't love posting a new thread, coming back in 30 minutes and seeing 30 replies? We're not making any money from this. It makes us feel good that other people are interested in what we post.

So even if someone is downloading child porn for free, the person posting it is getting off on the fact that others are downloading it, and that in itself encourages more CP to be produced, and more children to be victimized.

As for look-alikes, I believe that is legal. The draw of "barely legal" and teen magazines & websites is that the models look like they could be 14 or 15. They have to say "All models are 18 or older" because if they don't, the feds WILL be breaking down their doors.

How about drawings and text stories depicting adults having sex with children age 14, 12, 8 or 5? Is there are rational for outlawing this content, even though no actual children are involved in the creation of this material?

The_Jazz · 09-04-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racnad

Much of what is posted to the Internet is more for ego than financial gain. The big draw of youTube is posting your home video and a week later seeing 20,000 viewings. And who on TFP doesn't love posting a new thread, coming back in 30 minutes and seeing 30 replies? We're not making any money from this. It makes us feel good that other people are interested in what we post.

While I think that some of your points are valid for the majority of adults, I am not sure that it is for children. For argument's sake, a 15 year-old girl that takes naked pictures of herself for a boyfriend doesn't necessarily intend for those pictures to be released to the world at large, the same as many adults. There have been members of TFP that have found naked pictures of themselves or people they know that were stolen or posted somewhere else without permission. One of the main reasons that minors are treated differently than adults is that most minors aren't able to foresee the consequenses of their actions.

Quote:

So even if someone is downloading child porn for free, the person posting it is getting off on the fact that others are downloading it, and that in itself encourages more CP to be produced, and more children to be victimized.

While this might be the case for some, I don't think that you can claim that it is a universal. It is just like the Request Board in the EZ here. People post to find things that they're looking for, but most never get anything in return. The ones that seem successful, at least from an outsider's view, are the ones that offer something in return.

Quote:

As for look-alikes, I believe that is legal. The draw of "barely legal" and teen magazines & websites is that the models look like they could be 14 or 15. They have to say "All models are 18 or older" because if they don't, the feds WILL be breaking down their doors.

Just one thing of note, and I say this because you're a newer member and it never hurts for the older ones to hear it: any picture on TFP, porn or otherwise, cannot show anyone under 18. This has nothing to do with the Feds. It is the rule we agreed to when we signed up. If you don't like it, tough.

Quote:

How about drawings and text stories depicting adults having sex with children age 14, 12, 8 or 5? Is there are rational for outlawing this content, even though no actual children are involved in the creation of this material?

This is actually where I hoped that this conversation would go.

I have a moral problem with pictures that use of-age models to make what seems to be underage porn. If you look at the Titty Board long enough you'll find it. When I see two naked 18 year old girls that are depicted as still being in middle school, I have a problem. It seems like the even the major porn producers are taking things in this direction these days, and I personally think it's wrong.

Ourcrazymodern? · 09-06-2007, 05:39 PM

I seem to recall having been attracted to children when I was a child. My idea of how things might be different:

Kiddie porn for the kiddies
And other things for "adults".
I refuse to draw age lines - that's up to the legislators and the "judges".

Our souls will survive for as long as they can.

Fast Forward · 09-13-2007, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

half the 18 year old girls on the internet who spread clams for thier ex boyfriends probably didn't consent to the picture being posted on the internet either. Is it simply "ok" because the viewer doesn't know any better?

Good question.

Shauk · 09-13-2007, 02:38 AM

what defines right and wrong though?

*shrug*

your religion?

your morals?

where do you think that came from? it didn't come from you, it was taught to you.

just like how you might feel a slight twinge of panic when you see someone doing drugs, or underage drinking, or breaking a "norm" or a law that you "believe" in.

I'll tell ya what, Faith is believing, and believing empowers otherwise powerless laws and figureheads into powerful beings, it transitions control and responsibility from yourself to a faceless entity.

its hard to explain my viewpoint, but to me, it's less about being right or wrong, but understanding how it connects to everything.

I'm not so good with metaphors on this particular topic but I would say that if you went back to your infancy, when you were "innocent" and you retained your ignorance of morality and social norms, you'd still probably just shit and piss all over the carpet as much as your typical non domesticated mammal. You'd think nothing of it, if you ever came face to face to your socialized counterpart, you'd both think oddly of eachother. I mean its a weird example but take Japan, Pubic hair is taboo there, I don't know how deep of a taboo it is or if its on par as far as "offensive" nature as the concept of child porn to americans.

If no one ever taught you that child porn was wrong, or if, in some alternate reality, it was acceptable (this is a hard thing to imagine as it is very taboo and illegal in American society) then you'd just have it being a case of "IT IS WHAT IT IS"

not what adjectives you use to describe it, thats all imparted from your perception.

Ourcrazymodern? · 09-13-2007, 06:47 AM

"The air is the air, what can be done?"

Of course, someone who was convinced he knew was "prepared" to jump into the conversational gap and offer something called a tri-ox compound. And the fearless leader allowed it.

Talk about liberals!

Child porn IS WRONG, simply because taking sexual advantage of kids is wrong.

I can hardly believe this is number 39.

tecoyah · 09-13-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

what defines right and wrong though?

*shrug*

your religion?

your morals?

where do you think that came from? it didn't come from you, it was taught to you.

just like how you might feel a slight twinge of panic when you see someone doing drugs, or underage drinking, or breaking a "norm" or a law that you "believe" in.

I'll tell ya what, Faith is believing, and believing empowers otherwise powerless laws and figureheads into powerful beings, it transitions control and responsibility from yourself to a faceless entity.

its hard to explain my viewpoint, but to me, it's less about being right or wrong, but understanding how it connects to everything.

I'm not so good with metaphors on this particular topic but I would say that if you went back to your infancy, when you were "innocent" and you retained your ignorance of morality and social norms, you'd still probably just shit and piss all over the carpet as much as your typical non domesticated mammal. You'd think nothing of it, if you ever came face to face to your socialized counterpart, you'd both think oddly of eachother. I mean its a weird example but take Japan, Pubic hair is taboo there, I don't know how deep of a taboo it is or if its on par as far as "offensive" nature as the concept of child porn to americans.

If no one ever taught you that child porn was wrong, or if, in some alternate reality, it was acceptable (this is a hard thing to imagine as it is very taboo and illegal in American society) then you'd just have it being a case of "IT IS WHAT IT IS"

not what adjectives you use to describe it, thats all imparted from your perception.

While I agree individual perception of a "thing" defines it, I would point out that by and large, it is inherent in most animals (and Humans) to protect the young. Perception certainly comes into play, but instinct does as well. As we humans evolved into a social animal, it followed that this animal instinct to care for our young evolved as well, thus an understanding of perceived exploitation became a part of instinctual preservation of the young. Very few want damaged children, as they do not further the species' health. We, as Humans have come to accept Mental Health as an important criteria for the species due to the increased reliance on our ability to think as humans, and further the evolution through cultural and technological growth.
It is generally understood that exploitation of the young is counter-productive in the context of a well developed society, and can easily create disfunction in later life. In my view this is a primary reason we rightfully consider child pornography as taboo. Kids will have enough sexual issues when they grow up, it makes no sense to make them deal with this before they need to.

Ustwo · 3-2007, 08:57 AM

Since children can't protect themselves from sexual predators by nature, and anyone who gets off on obviously under aged children having sex is a true pervert it only makes sense that having child pornography should be illegal since in this case the viewer is creating a market for exploitation.

Fast Forward · 09-14-2007, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

what defines right and wrong though?

Who know for sure? But as far as child pornography goes, we can start by observing national laws governing "age of consent". If we photograph "under age" children in pornographic poses then it's a safe bet that it is "wrong". The same ought to go for looking (collecting? getting off?) on such photos. No?

It's might be easier to say what is "wrong" than what is "right".

Shauk · 09-14-2007, 02:20 AM

kind of like how people define themselves by what they are "not" instead of what they "are"

abaya · 09-14-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

We, as Humans have come to accept Mental Health as an important criteria for the species due to the increased reliance on our ability to think as humans, and further the evolution through cultural and technological growth.
It is generally understood that exploitation of the young is counter-productive in the context of a well developed society, and can easily create disfunction in later life.

Tec, I have to say, this is kind of assuming a universal belief in the "mental health" and "innocence" of children... when in fact, in many developing countries (and even not so long ago, in the US), there is no such thing.

A little walk around the block of Patpong Road in Bangkok will tell you that. *VERY* pre-pubescent girls there, forced to do god knows what with lecherous pedophiles, just to send some money back home to their parents (if it ever gets there). Same thing goes on in a lot of places.

Or, even removed from a sexual context, previous to 1938 in the US (when Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, prohibiting child labor under age 16), look at the ages of kids working in factories... where their small hands were desired for working quickly with the machines, and injuries on the job, losing fingers and hands, getting coal in the lungs, were just part of "growing up." This kind of thing still goes on in plenty of countries... "According to recent global estimates by the International Labor Office, the number of working children aged 5 to 14 in developing countries is in the order of 250 million, of whom some 120 million work full time in various jobs often under hazardous conditions amid crude living conditions." (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...abor/about.htm ).

It's only in the last 100 years that people (mostly Western countries) have begun to think of children as "innocent" and having a need to be "protected," whether from sexual exploitation or work exploitation. The rest of the world is still catching up, unfortunately... and as long as there's a demand, there will always be someone to supply that "commodity." Very unfortunate fact.

tecoyah · 09-14-2007, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Tec, I have to say, this is kind of assuming a universal belief in the "mental health" and "innocence" of children... when in fact, in many developing countries (and even not so long ago, in the US), there is no such thing.

A little walk around the block of Patpong Road in Bangkok will tell you that. *VERY* pre-pubescent girls there, forced to do god knows what with lecherous pedophiles, just to send some money back home to their parents (if it ever gets there). Same thing goes on in a lot of places.

Or, even removed from a sexual context, previous to 1938 in the US (when Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, prohibiting child labor under age 16), look at the ages of kids working in factories... where their small hands were desired for working quickly with the machines, and injuries on the job, losing fingers and hands, getting coal in the lungs, were just part of "growing up." This kind of thing still goes on in plenty of countries... "According to recent global estimates by the International Labor Office, the number of working children aged 5 to 14 in developing countries is in the order of 250 million, of whom some 120 million work full time in various jobs often under hazardous conditions amid crude living conditions." (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...abor/about.htm ).

It's only in the last 100 years that people (mostly Western countries) have begun to think of children as "innocent" and having a need to be "protected," whether from sexual exploitation or work exploitation. The rest of the world is still catching up, unfortunately... and as long as there's a demand, there will always be someone to supply that "commodity." Very unfortunate fact.

Thus, I used the evolution of our societies as a backdrop for the statements. Things have changed quite a bit in the last 50 yrs, and society as a whole reflects the growth of understanding psychology. Granted, all societies on earth differ in this regard, but the trend toward protecting the young on a mental level is genuine and expanding. Western Taboo of Child sex is an example of this growth in my opinion.

abaya · 09-14-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Western Taboo of Child sex is an example of this growth in my opinion.

Point taken. I guess I just see so much abuse of children (in all ways) in developing countries, that it kind of overwhelms my opinion of the "progress" of human society as a whole. It's just very sad to see 10 or 12 year old prostitutes, you know?... and to know that there is a market for that...

tecoyah · 09-15-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Point taken. I guess I just see so much abuse of children (in all ways) in developing countries, that it kind of overwhelms my opinion of the "progress" of human society as a whole. It's just very sad to see 10 or 12 year old prostitutes, you know?... and to know that there is a market for that...

...couldn't agree more...Thus, I check ID's on all my prositutes

Sorry, trying to inject a bit of humor into a very bad situation

Fast Forward · 09-17-2007, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

kind of like how people define themselves by what they are "not" instead of what they "are"

You could say that.

One example might be, "I'm NOT a capitalist". It doesn't mean that you are a communist or any other form of an established, political institution.

Another example might be, "I do NOT believe in God". It doesn't mean that you deny God's existance or that you are saying that God didn't create heaven and earth. "I don't believe in God" merely means that you are not fully convinced. Nothing more - nothing less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; YOU are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Unless you're a fakir and your aim is good.

Datalife2 · 09-17-2007, 12:40 PM

Kids are having sex younger than ever before. I am totally against child porn but with the way the world is changing at this extreme speed...gay marriage and multiple divorce people,.. i can see the world getting more screwed up as it already is..whats next beastiality legalization...the world has no shame anymore.

Ustwo · 09-17-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Datalife2

Kids are having sex younger than ever before. I am totally against child porn but with the way the world is changing at this extreme speed...gay marriage and multiple divorce people,.. i can see the world getting more screwed up as it already is..whats next beastiality legalization...the world has no shame anymore.

You know if that were true every time someone has said it in history, kids would be having sex in the womb by now.

Racnad · 09-17-2007, 01:38 PM

When I was in high school during the late 1970s, I thought I was one of the few left my age who wasn't having sex. Oh, wait! I did have sex wto tmes with one girl when I was 15, then not again until after high school.

Now I know that in my day, most of us in high school were not having sex, but we thought everyone else was.

Recent surveys of teen sexual behavoir show that a few teens age 13-16 are having sex, but most aren't. This doesn't sound that different than when I was in high school.

In recent years there have been stories circulating about blowjob parites or "rainbow" parties in which a bunch of guys stand in a line and girls take turns giving them blowjobs. There was a novel about this, a few Oprah! shows and a series on Showtime I saw where a teen character when to one.

But when journalists try to track these down, all they find are kids who've heard about other kids or kids at other schools who've been to them. No oen can find kids who've actualy been to them.

Anything than makes juicy gossip or scares parents gets passed around, whether it is true or not. One good barometer of teen sexuakl activity is the teen pregnancy rate, and that is down since the 1980s.

nonplussed · 09-19-2007, 06:07 PM

The first rule of morality is "do no harm".

Child pornography is wrong because the existance of the images is hurtful to the young subjects. Would they feel better knowing that people are looking at the pictures or would they feel better knowing that they have all been destroyed? For the record, I think they would want the pictures destroyed.

I anticipate that you would argue that this logic is flawed because the young subjects have no way of knowing that you are looking at the pictures. My answer is that morality means doing the right thing even if no one is looking.

But... if someone past the age of consent gives you child porn featuring them in an episode from the past, then there is nothing wrong with viewing the images

goomba_1 · 09-22-2007, 09:24 AM

There isn't really "child pornography" in any sort of meaningful sense. Its another internet boogeyman made up by the powers that be in pursuit of greater control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Since children can't protect themselves from sexual predators by nature, and anyone who gets off on obviously under aged children having sex is a true pervert it only makes sense that having child pornography should be illegal since in this case the viewer is creating a market for exploitation.

You cannot destroy a market based on fighting the supply side when you are dealing with (nearly) infinitely inelastic demand. See also: narcotics, prostitution.

JumpinJesus · 09-22-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

It's only in the last 100 years that people (mostly Western countries) have begun to think of children as "innocent" and having a need to be "protected," whether from sexual exploitation or work exploitation. The rest of the world is still catching up, unfortunately... and as long as there's a demand, there will always be someone to supply that "commodity." Very unfortunate fact.

I think this is one of the most compelling statements in this thread and exploring this a bit further might help answer the original question of the thread.

Before the time when children were considered innocent and needing protection, would child pornography have been acceptable? Had the internet existed during this time where child labor was acceptable, how would we have responded to child pornography then?

Halx · 09-22-2007, 03:10 PM

I think that if having sex with a child was accepted in society, then the act of doing it would not be surrounded with secrecy, deception and shame. In turn, the result would not be damaging, like it is frequently portrayed to be. Sex would just mean a lot different things to us.

Sharon · 09-22-2007, 04:17 PM

You can't compare CP with pictures of murdered victims. Those pictures don't encourage murders in the same way as CP encourages child abuse. A closer parallel might be comparing them with snuff films. If people were seeking out and paying for snuff films, that would probably end up leading to more murders in the same way CP would end up producing more child abuse.

To answer the question about whether it's wrong... sexual abuse of children fucks them up, in most cases for the rest of their lives. CP causes child abuse pretty much without exception, and therefore I think it is wrong.

Which I suppose brings us to the tangent of whether porn is wrong if it fucks up its participants (and in many cases it probably does). But we already have enough threads on that.

Fast Forward · 09-25-2007, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon

To answer the question about whether it's wrong... sexual abuse of children fucks them up, in most cases for the rest of their lives.

But that applies to adults too. So I must agree that we're back to the question of the validity in pornography as a whole. Anyway, that's what I said in the beginning - and we're still there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I think that if having sex with a child was accepted in society, then the act of doing it would not be surrounded with secrecy, deception and shame. In turn, the result would not be damaging, like it is frequently portrayed to be. Sex would just mean a lot different things to us.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

I believe that sex with children was once "normal" within the Roman Empire. Also, adult men's sexual gratification with young boys is often "common place" today in many Islamic cultures where premarital sex is strongly forbidden. Although I don't believe the practice of molesting boys is "officially" accepted it must almost certainly be more readily tolerated than having sex with women - before marriage.

mixedmedia · 09-25-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I think that if having sex with a child was accepted in society, then the act of doing it would not be surrounded with secrecy, deception and shame. In turn, the result would not be damaging, like it is frequently portrayed to be. Sex would just mean a lot different things to us.

There is a lot of validity in this statement.

Most people around here know that my kids were molested - starting approximately at around the age of 8 respectively (although I did not know it until they were 18 & 15). Now, not under any circumstances do I believe it is right or appropriate to have sex with children - it is an adult behavior that can spread disease, cause pregnancy, and bring all sorts of adult phenomena and anxiety into a child's life that it is really worthwhile to protect them from.

But the fact is my kids are okay and I think in large part that is due to having grown up in a household where there was no concept of shame associated with sexuality. When my kids talk about it now, it is the sense of secrecy, of having kept it from me, of having betrayed me (because their molester was their stepfather) that haunts them. They are not haunted by a sense of sexual shame because they know that their role in the abuse was part of their own natural curiosity about sex - a curiosity that was exploited by someone who was/is damaged by his own childhood experiences. Now, the former feelings I have been able to help them with - all I've had to do is support them and let them know that I love them.

It is the feelings of sexual guilt and shame, of feeling like you are a bad or weak person for allowing it to happen to you that lead to heavy, lingering emotional damage in molestation victims. Like my former husband - whose own shame was so great that in the 10+ years we were together he never told me about it. He was molested by a male cousin when he was 8. His parents caught them and their reaction was to put him in the bathtub (to 'clean him up' I suppose), beat him, and immediately push the entire episode into the closet and never talk about it.

Now it's really kind of a catch-22 situation though, because if you remove the shame from sexual activity to protect children who are molested from suffering a lifetime of emotional damage (and thereby avoid going on to molest other children) will you be inadvertently encouraging more sexual activity among/with children?

Personally, I think it is worth the risk.

Deltona Couple · 09-25-2007, 01:45 PM

This whole thread had become an interesting discussion on a very real and disturbing condition. I have already stated my general thoughts on the subject, and since some people have brought up an interesting point on society progression, I will add this:
We as a Western society are trying to do our best to protect the children as a whole against child exploitation(child labour as well as child pornography)
As a general rule, most states support age of concent at around 17, and child porn laws for anyone under the age of 18. I have heard many comments that generally state "if anyone has thoughts of having sex with a minor, then they are sick." And in TODAY'S society, I would tend to agree. However It is a progression of sorts. It was less than 100 years ago that in our own country, girls were considered "old maids" if they were not married and poping out children by the age of 14. Of course this was also based on the fact that the average age of death was only in the 40s. So as we progress in lifestyle and developmental progression we have changed the societal norm to a more reasonable age. Who knows? In another 100 years we may raise the age of concent to 21 for sex! Then are we suddenly going to say that those who have sex with a 20 year old are sick?...lol. I hope I am getting my point across...but do you all see what I mean?

Sharon · 09-25-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast Forward

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon

To answer the question about whether it's wrong... sexual abuse of children fucks them up, in most cases for the rest of their lives.

But that applies to adults too. So I must agree that we're back to the question of the validity in pornography as a whole. Anyway, that's what I said in the beginning - and we're still there.

Sure it applies to adults. I also mentioned the "pornography as a whole" question in my post later on.

The difference here is that (in general) the younger a person is, the less well equipped they are to make a decision about something like that. Sure, when you're 18 you may be naive about the consequences of being in the adult industry, but at least you probably have some idea. When you are 8, you simply don't realise what you're dealing with... and in ases of child abuse, that decision was never even made available to them as it is forced upon them (or manipulated on them, which again also happens to naive 18 year olds, but as before, they should know better than an 8 year old).

Fast Forward · 09-26-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon

... and in ases of child abuse

In asses of child abuse? This should be included in the 'Happy National Punctuation Day.' thread.

Sharon · 09-26-2007, 11:51 AM

Typing on my laptop while lying on my bed isn't great for my accuracy!

Fast Forward · 09-27-2007, 01:36 AM

At least you didn't complain about me adding an extra letter to spice it up.

Ustwo · 09-27-2007, 07:55 AM

Sex with a sexually mature (note I said sexually) child is one thing. I don't approve of it but more from a protection aspect, 13-18 year olds tend to be dumbasses, 18+ slightly less dumbass.

Sex with a sexually immature child, no grass on the field, is fucked up.

The first is fluid. Not even every state in America agrees where the line is, so its all over the place world wide. There can be valid arguments on both sides. I think its the wealth and the 'extended' childhoods in the west which push that line to 18, where in some impoverished nation, 14 makes more sense.

The second is where I put the perverts.

So which group is being discussed here?

mixedmedia · 09-27-2007, 08:16 AM

I agree with you and I would assume we are talking about the second.

squeeeb · 09-29-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sex with a sexually mature (note I said sexually) child is one thing. I don't approve of it but more from a protection aspect, 13-18 year olds tend to be dumbasses, 18+ slightly less dumbass.

Sex with a sexually immature child, no grass on the field, is fucked up.

The first is fluid. Not even every state in America agrees where the line is, so its all over the place world wide. There can be valid arguments on both sides. I think its the wealth and the 'extended' childhoods in the west which push that line to 18, where in some impoverished nation, 14 makes more sense.

The second is where I put the perverts.

So which group is being discussed here?

the original question is for the second group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon

You can't compare CP with pictures of murdered victims. Those pictures don't encourage murders in the same way as CP encourages child abuse. A closer parallel might be comparing them with snuff films. If people were seeking out and paying for snuff films, that would probably end up leading to more murders in the same way CP would end up producing more child abuse.

To answer the question about whether it's wrong... sexual abuse of children fucks them up, in most cases for the rest of their lives. CP causes child abuse pretty much without exception, and therefore I think it is wrong.

Which I suppose brings us to the tangent of whether porn is wrong if it fucks up its participants (and in many cases it probably does). But we already have enough threads on that.

i agree sexual abuse of children is wrong, but i disagree CP causes sexual abuse. i've said it before, i will look at CP ALL DAY, and after all the vomiting and being phisically ill by it, it won't make me want to have sex with children. same as i can watch gay porn all day long, i'm not gonna want to suck a dick. i can only assume most people are the same way.

orionnebula · 09-29-2007, 09:49 PM

This is a great question... Is child porno wrong?

Of course for child (pre-puberty) that is a definate YES.

As for teens, the answer is more vague. It all depends on the notion of maturity and legal consent. Currently 18 years is the "ideal age" to mature, but for some 14 would be ok while for other, they would puss it back to 21.

If two "underage" teens where to do porn by themselves, would it be wrong that is hard question, for the act itself, I don't think it would be. But who would watch it: perverts. So this make it wrong.

But for the first situation, it will probably never happen without the persuasion ($$$) by a sex producer and if a major is involved with minor then it is wrong.

But is adult porn (especially barely-legal type) right because some of the actress are not adult (and it shows in the making of on the dvds)

Sharon · 09-30-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

i agree sexual abuse of children is wrong, but i disagree CP causes sexual abuse. i've said it before, i will look at CP ALL DAY, and after all the vomiting and being phisically ill by it, it won't make me want to have sex with children. same as i can watch gay porn all day long, i'm not gonna want to suck a dick. i can only assume most people are the same way.

I am referring to the people who produce the stuff, not the people who view it.

mixedmedia · 09-30-2007, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

i agree sexual abuse of children is wrong, but i disagree CP causes sexual abuse. i've said it before, i will look at CP ALL DAY, and after all the vomiting and being phisically ill by it, it won't make me want to have sex with children. same as i can watch gay porn all day long, i'm not gonna want to suck a dick. i can only assume most people are the same way.

Of course, it won't make a person who isn't a pedophile into one. But I think there could be some merit to the theory that it could contribute to a pedophile's motivation to live out their fantasies if they are one who has managed to keep it in check. Pedophilia is not an ordinary sexual desire. It is a fetish which is only a step away from a compulsion. And once they take that step, very few are ever in control of it again. So I believe there is culpability to be found in media that depicts sexual activity with pre-pubescent children.

albania · 09-30-2007, 08:21 PM

In this case I’m considering a naked picture and for arguments sake let’s suppose that regardless of whatever method the picture was taken the child was not traumatized or deeply affected. This topic is somewhat interesting. I think it’s safe to say that child pornography is wrong, but the interesting part is why. It’s almost wrongness by association; there is nothing wrong with the human body. However, there is agreement in the supposition that you can look at the human body in an evil or perverse way. The crux of the matter stands in practicality. It certainly is possible to look at child pornography and not be a pedophile, but there is no one that has the capacity to differentiate a pedophile and a non-pedophile who both watch child porn. So here it is reason that binds us. Child pornography is wrong because to allow otherwise is to have to allow for enough doubt that makes it logically inconsistent to jail someone for looking at child pornography. (hehe, reread this and summed it up to myself this way: It’s wrong because if it wasn’t wrong we couldn’t put people in jail for it. Kind of circular...but it made sense to me at the time.)

A slight tangent: I remember hearing once that giving people access to pornography of rape (anime) lead to less rape. The case considered was Japan. The counterargument given was that the society in Japan forces women to keep rape a secret, i.e. it’s not that this type of porn was somehow keeping crimes of rape low in Japan but rather they just went unreported. I don’t know enough about Japan to say either way, but what if it was true that child pornography (cartoon or what have you) lead to some pedophiles not acting on their urges? Would it be wrong to in that case? Sorry, if this was brought up before. I’m slightly sleepy and didn’t read through every post.

Shauk · 10-01-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I think that if having sex with a child was accepted in society, then the act of doing it would not be surrounded with secrecy, deception and shame. In turn, the result would not be damaging, like it is frequently portrayed to be. Sex would just mean a lot different things to us.

this is kind of what I was getting at. Theres no magic transition at 16/17/18 or whatever your state laws are that make sex an inherently different function of humanity. really,what this topic is about is social perception and reaction.

I dunno for some reason there has always been a distinction between molestation, rape, and then just plain sex.

it's funny to me because you know it seems the kneejerk reaction to hearing "child" before the word porn is to assume that the older person took advantage of the child against their will. I've never been one to make assumptions though.

I guess I gain a unique perspective on this because i've been interested in sex since the moment I was 12 years old. I don't think I would have felt like the law would need to step in and take punitive measures if I wanted to "mature" a little early and find out what the big fuss was.

now I hope to extract myself from this thread without people having it in thier head that "damn, that shauk dude is fuuuuucked up" because I assure you, i'm not. I just don't have kneejerk reactions to everything that modern society tells me that I should. I'm just not that programmable I guess. While this topic applies to sex/porn my philosophy applies to many more aspects than that. I guess the whole "rule of thumb" lifestyle isn't for me.

oh and after rereading the thread I guess I should re-iterate I'm of the "no grass on the field" playstyle is pretty messed up.

although I like my women mostly shaved

kinda funny cuz the other day I came in from a delivery and the 1st thing my co-worker asks was "was she hot?"

and she was actually, but then I went on to add that she was a bit young

"what, like 11?"

"hahaha no, god I hope not, I'd feel kinda weird if she was"

which actually turned into a discussion about how it's so hard to tell anymore, I've been caught off guard by a girl who was hitting on me and then when I found out she was 14 I was just like "oh, shit" cuz she looked like she was about 20 or so.

I guess my line in that situation would have been "i would have done it but I didn't want to get in trouble" because I mean, thats just a huge can of worms to get labeled as a sexual offender for the rest of your life, jail time, and worse.

Deltona Couple · 10-02-2007, 08:51 AM

OK. based on alot of the posts here, I have a question on the same general lines here. I would truely like an honest answer from everyone. Here is the senario: (not a REAL situation, but I am using myself as an example for clarity)

Lets say I was a child in today's society, with access to digital cameras, and video. Now I am 13 years old, and me and my 13 year old girlfriend think it would be fun to take a video of us having sex together. We make the video, and it gets shoved into the closet. 20 years later, where I would be 33 years old, I find the video hidden in a box. I then watch the video, remembering who it was of....Now am I a sick person if watching that video turns me on? considering it was ME in the video in the first place? I am honestly curious how everyones own opinion was. Put yourself in the situation instead of me....how does it look from your perspective? because to me, I don't see it being pedopheliac of me, where if i watched a video of someone ELSE, then I would say I would be that way if it turned me on. Thoughts?

bhamv · 10-03-2007, 05:41 AM

First, apologies for the Godwin.

The scenario in the original post reminds me of how all Nazi imagery is banned in Germany now. The Nazi regime, so twisted and horrific, is something that the vast majority of modern society wants no part of. (I note, of course, that there are some exceptions) In Germany, this distaste is made part of their legal and moral code.

Now, simply looking at a swastica doesn't automatically make you anti-semitic. Reading about the Holocaust doesn't automatically make you want to build concentration camps. Studying Mein Kampf doesn't automatically make you grow a toothbrush moustache and extend your arm in salute.

However, Germany's determination to have no part further connection with the Nazi atrocities means they cut off all things Nazi. So drawing a swastika in public will get you thrown in jail, or at least the disapproval of lots of people. Take no chances, if you will.

Similarly, the abuse of children is seen as twisted and horrific. So taking, distributing and viewing pictures of child abuse is similarly avoided. People take no chances in coming into contact with anything associated with child abuse.

So is viewing child pornography inherently wrong? I don't think so. But due to its indelible association with child abuse, people will always react negatively to child porn.

Lak · 10-03-2007, 09:33 PM

I'd like to do a quick rundown here because there are several interesting points in this thread and I think we can knock off a few of them:

1) Photo of a crime
The only clear distinction in the 'picture of a crime' analogy is that consumption creates a market demand. While photos of dead people are not illegal, child pornography is because if one downloads or purchases it in some way it creates an active market - supply and demand. While CP remains valuable to some people then others will continue to create it for profit. Thus by consuming CP in some way you (semi)directly contribute to the further abuse of children.
My conclusion: Yes CP is wrong.
Reason: Actively creates demand.

2) Age of consent
As already fairly extensively covered a while ago on TFP, its generally agreed here that the age of consent is a rather arbitrary and meaningless figure imposed out of necessity to protect children from manipulation. It can never be concrete but the higher the limit the more certain we can be that those above it are fit to fend for themselves. It can't be 100%. It wouldn't be 100% of the limit was 30 and it wouldn't be 0% if the limit was 10. There is little doubt however that manipulation occurs largely in the 6-16 zone and thus it is necessary to have some kind of imposition.
My conclusion: The age of consent is appropriate.
Reason: It is necessary and falls on the 'safe' side of 'safe or sorry'.

3) Spawning Abusers
Here is what I find the most interesting point, does viewing CP make a CP 'enthusiast' more likely to go out and try it on for themselves. I find it highly unlikely. Equating a pedophile with a child molester is equivalent to equating an everyday healthy male with a rapist. To simple be a pedophile hurts no-one. If I am a regular guy with a sexual attraction to women, viewing large amounts of (legal) pornography does not increase my desire to go out and abuse or rape women. If you extend this to sexual attraction to children instead of women, one can conclude that generally, CP does not encourage abuse on the part of the viewer (but it can on the part of the producer, see #1).
My conclusion: Viewing CP does not make one into an abuser per se
Reason: It is unreasonable to assume that attraction begets rape
This leads me to what I find most interesting in these discussions:

4) Simulated Child Pornography
A quick tour of wikipedia will tell you that in Japan, 'lolicon' (a contraction of 'lolita complex') describes fairly run-of-the-mill pedophilia expressed as original drawings, and that this is legal to buy and own. (Real, actual CP is of course still illegal). This makes sense if you think about it because in order to produce lolicon imagery, no child need be manipulated at all. It is a picture of... well, nothing. There is no crime. Here is the question then:

Consider lolicon or other types of 'fake' CP in which no real child is used and no exploitation takes place. Is this a harmless outlet for desires which might otherwise turn to harmful types of media or direct abuse of real children, or a slippery slope (a-la pornography runaway) wherein exposure to the images eventually encourages viewers to pursue the real thing?

Clare · 10-04-2007, 12:42 PM

Child porn is wrong, although i do see your point. some of these people will be ashamed of their feelings but can't do anything about it. People are turned on by lots of different things. Even if this is the result of say a molestation when the person themselves has been a child, they can't control being attracted to children, they can only control what they do about it.

Of course this leads to another point should they even act upon this by looking at child porn! the same as someone would do with beastiality or BDSM? Or should their other instincts and morals take over and persuade them not to act upon it? Would this repression damage them mentally even further? the way a transexual becomes depressed by repressing their desire to be another sex by denying themselves. this is a very interesting subject with so many things to consider.

orionnebula · 10-05-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

Put yourself in the situation instead of me....how does it look from your perspective? because to me, I don't see it being pedopheliac of me, where if i watched a video of someone ELSE, then I would say I would be that way if it turned me on. Thoughts?

If it was me I don't see it as porn. It might aroused you for many reason, a long lost love for example. If it was from someone else tought and the kids are 13 years old, yes there might an issue there.

Deltona Couple · 10-06-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orionnebula

If it was me I don't see it as porn. It might aroused you for many reason, a long lost love for example. If it was from someone else tought and the kids are 13 years old, yes there might an issue there.

That is what I was getting at. I was curious what others might think of it as well.

ASU2003 · 10-13-2007, 09:24 AM

I would probably remember it if I was in it. So, video tape or not, I could replay it in my head.

If it was two other young teens, it becomes a gray area. If it is your best friend and his girlfriend, that is cool. If it is some drug addict dropout looking to make some money, that isn't cool. If it is a video of a amateur couple that just put their camera on a tripod and nobody forced them to make it, it's cool. If it is some older guy having sex with some 14 year old, it's not cool. If it is just a video of a naked girl showing off for her boyfriend/to get attention, she needs better guidance and parenting, but I wouldn't really have a problem with it. She might have a problem with it later in life though.

There are a lot of weird cases and such that makes it easier to say, you have to be 18 in order to do this.

ChefDylan · 10-13-2007, 07:52 PM

I believe the intent of the laws intent for child pornography is the same as it is for adults in prison.

lemme elaborate.

In both cases these individuals are seen as not able to make informed legal decisions of a sexual nature due to environmental or emotional problems.

I think most of us would like to believe in the hope that a child feels at least somewhat "safe" or "protected" in our society. We make laws to limit or prohibit what we see as violations of a sexual or abusive nature. In a good percentage, I say it that way because I dont have a study handy to give an accurate number, of child molestation or pornography cases the person who performed the act or took the photos was known to the child prior to the event.

In prison this is seen as an inability to escape a situation. When you are locked up it is very hard for a 5'6" 150lb man to tell a 6'6" 300lb man to go to hell. But the state and federal gov't see it as unlawful whether it was consentual or not.

to argue over where the age of consent is 16 or 18 is a hard road. For each of us it is different. Even at 30 years old would you say a severely mentally retarded person is able to totally understand the possible outcomes of being videotaped having sex?

I think what most child protection laws come down to is environment. We just want to give our children the best chance to grow up being slightly less messed up than we are. And I dont think there is a single one of us who, even if we waited until we were 18 to have sex, could not think of at least one person we wish we hadnt had sex with.

d*d · 10-16-2007, 08:28 AM

Te photo analogy is a bit misleading, it's illegal to have a photo of child pornography as it is also illegal to have a picture of a murder taking place - snuff films for instance are not legal.

It is legal to have a picture of a person who has been murdered as it is legal to have a picture of a child who has previously had a pornographic act performed upon them, it is the photo of the act - murder or child porn - that is illegal

mixedmedia · 007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lak

3) Spawning Abusers
Here is what I find the most interesting point, does viewing CP make a CP 'enthusiast' more likely to go out and try it on for themselves. I find it highly unlikely. Equating a pedophile with a child molester is equivalent to equating an everyday healthy male with a rapist. To simple be a pedophile hurts no-one.

I think this is a very bad comparison. Pedophilia is an officially designated mental disorder, not a 'normal' sexual urge.

Quote:

If I am a regular guy with a sexual attraction to women, viewing large amounts of (legal) pornography does not increase my desire to go out and abuse or rape women.

I again I think this is a bad/lopsided comparison. No, pornography may not make a man go out and rape women. Not sure why you even take it that way. But I think it's pretty safe to say that viewing pornography can impart a person with the desire to have sex. Combine that with a compulsive disorder like pedophilia (more closely linked to a fetish than a 'normal' sexual urge) and I think that viewing child pornography could very easily instigate the pursuit of sex with children. After all, most victims of child sexual abuse are seduced, not forced.

I think you are confusing the concept of rape with child molestation. The crimes are very often called rape because the children are not legally considered to be old enough to consent, not because they are all forced.

Lak · 10-17-2007, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I think this is a very bad comparison. Pedophilia is an officially designated mental disorder, not a 'normal' sexual urge.

As much as I have reservations on the legitimacy of 'official designation' of mental disorders, I agree in that I certainly wouldn't classify pedophilia as 'normal' (you used that term, not I). My idea is that that pedophilia, in and of itself, may not necessarily be dangerous or harmful.

Quote:

mixedmedia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lak

If I am a regular guy with a sexual attraction to women, viewing large amounts of (legal) pornography does not increase my desire to go out and abuse or rape women.

I again I think this is a bad/lopsided comparison. No, pornography may not make a man go out and rape women. Not sure why you even take it that way. But I think it's pretty safe to say that viewing pornography can impart a person with the desire to have sex. Combine that with a compulsive disorder like pedophilia (more closely linked to a fetish than a 'normal' sexual urge) and I think that viewing child pornography could very easily instigate the pursuit of sex with children. After all, most victims of child sexual abuse are seduced, not forced.

My comparison relies and the ability for either subject to recognise the exploitation which they are party to. Just as the guy who would 'seduce' the girl who is over-and-out drunk at a party for his own gratification, his methods are wrong and reprehensible. Yes. she agreed to it, but no, she shouldn't have and no, she wasn't fit to make that decision anyway. This guy knowingly takes advantage of that, and this is the sort of person who is comparable to a child molester. The molester knows it is wrong. He does it anyway. The only difference is the victim demographic. These actions are part of his character, not a subset of the 'symptoms' of pedophilia.

If either of these men were unable to recognise that what they are doing is wrong, they would have a problem which causes them to be potentially harmful. They have the same problem in common, and yet one is a pedophile and one is not. To me this suggests that this 'problem' is not rooted in pedophilia, but some condition that sometimes/usually accompanies it. A abusive upbringing for example, can spawn both conditions.

It is true that many pedophiles fall into the second category and have poor moral judgement, but I think it is probably unfair to lump them together into the same condition. This is the concept that my analogy is based on. What are your thoughts?

mixedmedia · 10-17-2007, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lak

As much as I have reservations on the legitimacy of 'official designation' of mental disorders, I agree in that I certainly wouldn't classify pedophilia as 'normal' (you used that term, not I). My idea is that that pedophilia, in and of itself, may not necessarily be dangerous or harmful.

Well, no. In a vacuum, perhaps, where there is no temptation nor human tendency towards rationalization of one's desires. In and of itself, no, there is nothing wrong with having thoughts about having sex with children. But, as a person who deals with her own fetishes and obsessions, I know that fantasy and exposure to visual or written stimulation piques my desire to live them out. Fortunately for me, my obsessions are legal and don't rely on the exploitation of the young. But there for the grace of circumstance go I, perhaps?

I am not 'normal,' either.

It's a term I really don't like, either, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm okay with it.

Quote:

My comparison relies and the ability for either subject to recognise the exploitation which they are party to. Just as the guy who would 'seduce' the girl who is over-and-out drunk at a party for his own gratification, his methods are wrong and reprehensible. Yes. she agreed to it, but no, she shouldn't have and no, she wasn't fit to make that decision anyway. This guy knowingly takes advantage of that, and this is the sort of person who is comparable to a child molester. The molester knows it is wrong. He does it anyway. The only difference is the victim demographic. These actions are part of his character, not a subset of the 'symptoms' of pedophilia.

If either of these men were unable to recognise that what they are doing is wrong, they would have a problem which causes them to be potentially harmful. They have the same problem in common, and yet one is a pedophile and one is not. To me this suggests that this 'problem' is not rooted in pedophilia, but some condition that sometimes/usually accompanies it. A abusive upbringing for example, can spawn both conditions.

It is true that many pedophiles fall into the second category and have poor moral judgement, but I think it is probably unfair to lump them together into the same condition. This is the concept that my analogy is based on. What are your thoughts?

Well, I guess those are my thoughts pretty much above.

You're right in saying that pedophilia, like most other sexual proclivities and fetishes, is rooted most often in childhood experiences. I'm just not sure there is a compelling correlation between men who exploit women on dates and at parties, etc. and pedophiles.

Now, there are men (and women) who molest children who are not pedophiles. They are either what they call 'situational child molesters' or people who just don't give a fuck. In my estimation, these sorts of people would more closely align with the sort of person who would exploit someone who is drunk.

Seer666 · 10-22-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orionnebula

But for the first situation, it will probably never happen without the persuasion ($$$) by a sex producer and if a major is involved with minor then it is wrong.

these days, it does happen a lot without persuasion. there are a lot of message boards out there where underage kids are posting naked pictures of them selves for the simple amusement of it. Half and fully naked 15 year olds are all over the internet via anonymous message boards and a slew of video chat sights. the new generation is getting harder to exploit, by the simple fact they now exploit themselves.

agmasd · 03-27-2008, 06:21 PM

yes it is wrong let them make they lives indepentally when they be adults forcing any thing is wrooooooooooooooooong

thespian86 · 03-27-2008, 07:14 PM

My question is this, for all of those who are arguing that it is socially corrupt to do this; couldn't you argue that some situations, such as this, exploit someone who is unwilling to cooperate, and we say "this is exploitation, this is wrong", but aren't there other situations where people feel exploited within our societal norms and we say "too bad, that's life." I realize anyone can counter with "that is majority; that is how most of us feel" but the way I see it is "most" isn't "all". Where is the line? Understand what I mean? I might have to reword.

IMHO, as someone with two sisters under fourteen years old, I think the idea of someone forcing them to do sexually explicit things for someone else's sexual pleasure makes me... speechless.

BlueEyes · 03-27-2008, 07:42 PM

It is very simple.

Even if someone is looking at CP that they didn't take themselves, someone did. Someone's son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, niece or nephew is being taken advantage of, and may not even know it.

We need to protect our children. If we don't, we're only asking for a troubled future.

It sickens me that this can even be debated.

thespian86 · 03-27-2008, 07:48 PM

Blue, I don't think the debate is whether or not it is wrong, it's why is it wrong. It's in philosophy (I'm thinking) because the question is "why". Think about it.

mixedmedia · 03-27-2008, 08:47 PM

I think it's simple. It's because in most cases (and I'll go so far as to say all cases of pre-pubescent sexual exploitation) it's exactly that, exploitation that is going on there. It's like having sex with animals or the mentally disabled, you cannot be sure (and most often do not care) that you are having mutually agreed upon and enjoyed sex. It's a selfish pursuit on the part of the adult acted upon because of self-centered urges that prioritize themselves before the other legitimate concerns of the health and welfare of the animal, disabled person, child.

I've been called an elitist in my day, but I think legitimizing child sexual exploitation for some high-flung philosophical rationalization is about the most ridiculously elitist thing I ever heard.

Seer666 · 04-03-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueEyes

We need to protect our children. If we don't, we're only asking for a troubled future.

I think I might become very unpopuler here, and this is not directed at you but...

I fucking cring in pain every time I hear this phrase uttered. Every time someone says "protect the children", I watch 3 more of my civil liberties go out the fucking window. You know what? Fuck the children. Let them play with lawn darts. Let them learn, like I did as a kid, that there are things that fucking hurt when you play with them. You want to protect them, be a god damn parent and stop letting TV and the state raise them. Teach them right from wrong, teach them some morals, kick them off of the god damn Xbox every now and then if they are getting fat and lazy, but stop, for the love of fucking God, stop screaming protect the children every time some dumb shit kid falls off his bike and scraps his knee. They are your god damn kids not mine, and I will not give up one more of my fucking liberties so that people can feel better about making the world a safer place for the kids.

/thread jack.

SSJTWIZTA · 04-04-2008, 12:46 AM

some short song lyrics for Seer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Mike

FUCK THE KIDS!
FUCK THE KIDS!
FUCK THE KIDS!

okay, i was surfing around on newgrounds today and noticed an hentai-type animation of the teen titans which made me start to think. If child porn is illegal, whats the deal with it being legal to draw children cartoon characters engaging in the devious act? (sex of coarse)

MSD · 04-04-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSJTWIZTA

okay, i was surfing around on newgrounds today and noticed an hentai-type animation of the teen titans which made me start to think. If child porn is illegal, whats the deal with it being legal to draw children cartoon characters engaging in the devious act? (sex of coarse)

They claim that everyone is an adult, just young-looking, and it's better to have people jerking off to drawings than for actual kids to be abused making child porn.

ASU2003 · 04-04-2008, 07:38 PM

The worry there is that 3D computer animation is getting to the point where it might be hard to tell what is fake and what is real.

But I think the age should be lowered to 14. Not because I want 14-18 to enter the legal porn market (they shouldn't be able to, just like now). But if some high school girls take pictures of themselves and they leak out on-line, the guys that get them shouldn't be prosecuted. If some '17' year old who was in Girls Gone Wild becomes famous one day, she shouldn't be allowed to claim that that film is child pornography and prevent it from being distributed.

MirrorsrorriM · 05-02-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

3. child porn disgusts me, actually makes my stomach hurt. if you are sexually attracted to children, you need to talk to a professional about that and deal with whatever issues you have. no matter how much you lie to yourself, the kid does NOT want to have sex with you. it's rape.

I'm not a Catholic basher or anything, but I've been to Rome and there are hundreds of churches there and there are so many paintings depicting naked children, with genitals and everything, the Seraphim and Cherubim, the highest angels are depicted as naked children.

child abuse is just a political tool now for oppression. Instead of accusing their enemies of being 'enemies of the state' the commies accuse their enemies of child abuse. While it's true, the network of satanic homos who now control much of the machinations of the Beasts government are serial killing pedophiles, they also know how to play the shame game, they accuse others constantly of what they themselves are doing.

100,000 children have been disappearing every year for several decades now, they are never found. a million calls are placed a year, 90% of them are found, with the other parent and what not, but 10% of them are never found, never heard from again. The FBI is running around investigated 'hate crimes' and other such non-sense, but not these missing children, because, they are told not to investigate.

The catholic church held enormous stupid power and stupid people who hold power for stupid reasons often abuse that power to the ultimate extent, i.e having sex with everyone's children.

Probably all pornography is wrong, whether it's adults or children, what's the difference, adult pornography is worse, because children don't really know any better. To a child it's just like breast feeding or eating their baby food, kind of icky maybe, maybe feels sorta pleasant, but the degenerative effect on the will is worse in children, maybe? or are the effects on adults just as bad?

Why do people care so much about children, but after they turn 18 they want to torture and kill them for their non-conformist sexuality? It's because they are psychotic, dangerous people who shouldn't be allowed near people, let alone children.

Homosexual pedophilia is the most devastating of course, and I believe comes from this mysterious evil force that is absolutely real and present all around us, especially now that Satan controls the mass media. Satan is probably an alien life form that has an insect like consciousness, views humans are pretty much nothing but it's prey, human emotions are just to be manipulated and use to enslave them, murder, rape them, etc.

People see sexual predation of children as preying on helpless, smaller, weaker people, well, womanizers are doing the same thing, let's be honest, fornication should be illegal as well.

I mean, are you saying adults who engage in 'consensual' sex aren't preying on eachother most of the time? A stronger one preying on a weaker one? One with more money, preying on someone who doesn't have money, as in the case of prostitution? It's the same ugly thing in adult sexuality as in children, it's the same ugly thing in human nature, which is the universal nature of the world and all living things, thus, if there is a God, he is satanic and evil and a Omnipotent Monster and we should all commit mass suicide to end his sick control over higher beings whom he enjoys torturing.

mixedmedia · 05-02-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirrorssrorriM

Homosexual pedophilia is the most devastating of course,

Are you being sarcastic?

MirrorsrorriM · 05-02-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MirrorssrorriM
Homosexual pedophilia is the most devastating of course,

Are you being sarcastic?

oh i'm sorry, did I hurt the homosexual pedophile's feelings?

now THAT'S was sarcasm.

the internet has been so disheartening, there are so many, possessed by Satan now, I think more than are not, but especially the isolated people, whom satan bores into, and destroys their sexuality and perverts it and turns it into a hideous thing.
Everyword that comes out of their mouths is the devil himself, speaking to your face through them.

Satan is far more powerful than I ever understood, it is something truly beyond comprehension, I admit it's something so vast and horrible I cannot comprehend it, it's from another galaxy or solar system.

The_Jazz · 05-02-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirrorsrorriM

Satan is probably an alien life form that has an insect like consciousness, views humans are pretty much nothing but it's prey, human emotions are just to be manipulated and use to enslave them, murder, rape them, etc.

Whether you meant it or not, this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the internet. I mean I'm not against complete nutjobs or anything, but this is so far off the deep end that I can only see pure comic genius at work.

Thanks for the hearty laugh.

mixedmedia · 05-02-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirrorsrorriM

oh i'm sorry, did I hurt the homosexual pedophile's feelings?

now THAT'S was sarcasm.

the internet has been so disheartening, there are so many, possessed by Satan now, I think more than are not, but especially the isolated people, whom satan bores into, and destroys their sexuality and perverts it and turns it into a hideous thing.
Everyword that comes out of their mouths is the devil himself, speaking to your face through them.

Satan is far more powerful than I ever understood, it is something truly beyond comprehension, I admit it's something so vast and horrible I cannot comprehend it, it's from another galaxy or solar system.

uh, ya, thanks for clearing that up for me...

you must be very busy...fighting satan...on the internet, so I won't trouble you further.

but if you were looking for a place rife with hideous, perverted sexuality to, um, 'fight satan' *wink, wink* you've come to the right place.

Ustwo · 05-02-2008, 09:36 PM

The heretical nature of Satan the evil alien aside, lets say its true. The idea of a vastly powerful amazingly evil alien life form of some sort out there hell bent on our destruction is a scary thought. Its not even a unique idea, in fact the entire movie of The Fifth Element was pretty much based around this idea.

Now evil I can understand, evil aliens I can envision.

What I have a hard time making heads or tails of though is why would an ultra-powerful alien creature spend so much time and effort in convincing me to stick my penis in places other than my wifes vagina.

We have nuclear weapons, mass kill viruses, the potential for starvation and plague, and yet, it just can't seem to get us to use these weapons, at least on a global scale, to do some pretty evil and nasty things to each other. Yet, he convinces millions of men to stick their penises in other willing men, and less willing children.

Its...anticlimactic.

Its like being cornered by a gang of thugs in a dark alley and they approach you weapons drawn, only to try to sell you over priced magazine subscriptions.

It would be a pettiness unworthy of the prince of lies, and more up the alley of say the camber maid of practical jokes.

Maybe I'm wrong on my views on god and satan, but still, I can't see either of them overly worried where I stick my penis.

MirrorsrorriM · 05-02-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Its not even a unique idea, in fact the entire movie of The Fifth Element was pretty much based around this idea.

the bible says, 'it is not against bone and flesh that we battle, but against principalities and powers', however, the CAtholic translation is the word 'celestials', celestials, principalities and powers, are ALIENS, celestial means 'from the heavens' or 'from the stars'.

Quote:

Maybe I'm wrong on my views on god and satan, but still, I can't see either of them overly worried where I stick my penis.

the penis is merely the physical object, it's the spiritual power it represents, which is infinite, the phallic symbols you see on every TV show, the news anchors always standing in front of the Washington Monument or some such thing, the triangle, the pyramid on the back of the dollar, represents this concept. Sexual decadence drains the soul and allows satan to enter you and possess you, control your mind, so that you cannot even concieve of a plot against their government without them knowing, you've lost the territory of your own mind. you have become nothing but a thing animated by the spiritual force of Satan, and THAT is the ultimate goal of Satan, and it IS much worse than biological or nuclear weapons. because you are not dead. You are the living dead, still alive, being used by this psychotic homosexual supernatural killer, it's like Satan duct taping you up and putting computer chips in your brain and turning you into a robot, a slave, a thing for their amusement and usefulness. You have become Satan's appliance, with just enough thought left in you, to carry out the mundane tasks of your existence, but nothing more. No concern for spiritual insights or the jurisprudence of fair and righteous self government, only enough of a mind left to see 2 feet in front of you like a mule with blinders.

Obviously though, most of the people, even posting here, won't be able to understand, Satan will confuse them and prevent them from understanding it, he will punish them for their bad thoughts in a million creative ways, subtle subliminal controls too vast for what's left of their putrified minds, rotted with sin and fermented into a demonic elixor of decadence.

As revelation states, 'they shall be drunk with the wine of fornication', the wine of the Great Harlot, Diana, the statue of which sits atop the Capitol Building in Washington, DC.

Texe Marr was an Air Force Colonel, who taught bomber pilots strategy for nuclear war, he's the one I learned that about Diana from.

YouTube - 1. Mystery Babylon - Texe Marrs NWO

when i sense someone is willing to learn something, or give it intelligent consideration I don't mind elaborating.

Posession is simply dominant telepathy. The control a person telepathicly via the pineal gland, or the third eye, which is what the eye on the pyramid represents, the eye which is the symbol you see everywhere now, the CBS eye, etc. The Pineal gland is made of the same type of photoreceptive cells as are in the optic nerve and the retina, they can be stimilated by electromagnetic radiation, of a different frequency than light, they can interpret brain waves the way way your eye and brain interpret light waves. Telepathy is simply a natural, reality you all are never told about because they don't want you to know anything spiritual or true about your supernatural existance.
What people call 'love' or being in 'love' with their wife, they mean, they are in a pleasant state of telepathic union. telepathy isn't always about love. It is also about dominance and subversion of the will, the conquest of the soul, so to speak. One possesses another through sexual conquest, or 'sticking their penis in you' as you so eloquently and casually said.
As the Gospell (god's spelll) says, 'thou becomes one flesh', it warns against becoming one flesh with those possessed of the devil. the crazed sexual urges of demonicly possessed people, is simply the devil trying to spread itself like some kind of psychic virus, it's consciousness is trying to spread itself via sexual contact.

the Movie 'Fallen' is a good illustration of this, but uses the euphemism of touching people to possess them. the touching is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

Dtamr · 05-04-2008, 03:51 AM

Mirrorsrorrim,

Wait a minute. You're suggesting that thousands of children a year are kidnapped by the Catholic Church and forced into sexual slavery? I cant really read too far into your post beyond you saying that Satan controls the media and is - wait, here you go -

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirrorsrorriM

Satan is probably an alien life form that has an insect like consciousness, views humans are pretty much nothing but it's prey, human emotions are just to be manipulated and use to enslave them, murder, rape them, etc.

You then go on to say this, which frankly boggles my mind (I have no better term for it)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirrorsrorriM

if there is a God, he is satanic and evil and a Omnipotent Monster and we should all commit mass suicide to end his sick control over higher beings whom he enjoys torturing.

Then you say this! By now, I'm just reading for kicks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirrorsrorriM

Obviously though, most of the people, even posting here, won't be able to understand, Satan will confuse them and prevent them from understanding it, he will punish them for their bad thoughts in a million creative ways, subtle subliminal controls too vast for what's left of their putrified minds, rotted with sin and fermented into a demonic elixor of decadence.

Dude, this is awesome. You are a master flamer and for that, I applaud you. If we could get back to the subject at hand, though, I have a few things to say.

It's common that a lot of people in jail for unwilling (as opposed to statutory) rape of a minor had large stashes of CP either printed out or on thier computer. The point here is that there's a significant link in ownership of child pornography and actually going out and having sex with children. It's never the right thing to do, and it is repulsive, but I beleive that ownership and viewing of child pornography creates some desire to actively enact what you've seen.

Who among us have not gotten an idea of a sexual position from a legal pornographic photograph? I watch threesome videos and I think to myself "Damn! That looks fun! Wish I could do that someday!" Someone who is sufficietly desperate, perverted and motivated enough to look up CP online can perhaps one day become sufficiently desperate, perverted and motivated enough to enact his repugnant fantasies.

Lolicon is a good stopgap for these procedures. No children are hurt or exploited and the air of surrealism helps stop any perverts at the door, because nothing will ever be as perfect as the lolicon they own. Also, it's legal, widely available and free to download almost anywhere you go. Of course it's still wrong, but in degrees of wrongness, would you rather have the lolicon, created by a 35 year old virgin in his basement, or the actual CP out in the world? Lolicon hurts nobody, IMHO.

MirrorsrorriM · 05-04-2008, 10:44 PM

I didn't have anything nice to say so The_Jazz helped me out.

The_Jazz · 05-05-2008, 05:14 AM

Personal attacks are never a good idea at TFP. If you can't say anything nice, you should make liberal use of your back button.

echo5delta · 05-06-2008, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirrorsrorriM

the bible says, 'it is not against bone and flesh that we battle, but against principalities and powers', however, the Catholic translation is the word 'celestials', celestials, principalities and powers, are ALIENS, celestial means 'from the heavens' or 'from the stars'.

Well, um... yeah. That is the truth. I saw a documentary on it once:

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

i agree sexual abuse of children is wrong, but i disagree CP causes sexual abuse. i've said it before, i will look at CP ALL DAY, and after all the vomiting and being phisically ill by it, it won't make me want to have sex with children. same as i can watch gay porn all day long, i'm not gonna want to suck a dick. i can only assume most people are the same way.

To me, that post right there sums up a lot of the debate.

I'm not going to make assumptions about you, squeeb, but for my money?

Whenever I see pictures or video of some hot chick with some magnificent ta-tas, it makes me wanna bury my face in there and motorboat for a minute. I am blessed and proud to admit that it is something I've been able to do more than once or twice in my lifetime, hamd'allah. And I definitely want to do it again, several hundred times, insh'allah.

That being said, me looking at porn doesn't necessarily cause sexual abuse in itself. It makes me horny, and I act on that - rationally.

Summation: I can read my copies of Hustler magazine, and there's virtually no chance, based on historical record, that I'll do much except make a booty call or jerk off. Or maybe get drunk. Or all three. But it does get me horny, and often as not I will take action on that.

There are myriad causes of irrational thought - drugs, booze, chemical or neural imbalances, or just being raised wrong - that can cause genuine sexual abuse, whether in concert with or independently of an individual's horniness. There's also just simple sexual preference and identity, which many people don't discover (or admit) until a much later age than most folks.

While someone who gets horny for kids and views CP might truly not EVER want to act out on the impulse, historically, they do - at least once or twice. Hell, that's honestly a high degree of self-discipline, if you think about it.

Oh, and yeah, since the act itself a crime, that's the rationale for criminalizing CP: some people - maybe not me or you or even Ustwo, but some people - do act out on fantasies and impulses caused by CP itself. My personal impulse is to grab a gun and go kneecap some asshole for letting it happen, but I digress.

To be honest, I'm frankly pretty damn surprised this thread even went out to three pages. I can see why it did, though.

I'd also like to say right now that I've never actually ever seen any image or film or any other sort of child porn (no, not even that lameass Traci Lords shit), and I'm thankful for that. I'm not a father, but kids have always held a very special place to me.

Speaking of which, something that I agree with (from more than one poster in this thread) that's seriously fucked up is that so many First World countries take such a severe stance against child porn and sexual exploitation, but any other form of exploitation just sort of gets a blind eye. 2-year-old boys kidnapped, taken across international borders and used as camel jockeys? Nobody here gave a shit about that for years because a) they were brown people, and b) it was happening in Dubai, and, uh, oil, and... what? What exploitation?*

Secondly - and I think squeeb will see this as a valid point as well - I'm not a law-ttorney but I'm pretty sure that bestiality is also illegal by the letter of the law in most US states, if not federally. Likely many other "Western" countries hold similar policies.

Yet it's perfectly fine to have 38TB of dog-raping and horse-humping videos on your computer? Hmmm. Double standard, anyone?

I won't even get into necrophilia, since (like CP & bestiality) it involves sexual acts that are impossible to have mutual consent to.

*This is a random example; Sheikh Zayed, President of the UAE, did begin to address this ghastly problem with some measure of success prior to his death. I like to think Sheikh Khalifa has continued to do so...

Seer666 · 05-16-2008, 12:21 AM

I have to say, this has turned into one of the more entertaining threads for me to read. squeeeb, you seem to have summed up a lot of my views on it pretty well. MirrorsrorriM, I'm not sure if you really believe some of what you've said, or are simple one of the best trolls/button pushers I've seen in a long time. Either way, I truly look forward to see what you have to say next.

Tully Mars · 05-16-2008, 06:58 AM

I read back a little. Didn't read the whole thread and probably won't. I just have to say: "Is child pornography wrong?" Is that seriously in question? WTF!

Shauk · 05-16-2008, 10:04 AM

wow, I step out of this thread for quite some time and the whole satan alien spider thing greets me when I come back. AWESOME.

I wanna see more of what this guy comes up with. it's great fiction.

Dtamr · 05-19-2008, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

wow, I step out of this thread for quite some time and the whole satan alien spider thing greets me when I come back. AWESOME.

I wanna see more of what this guy comes up with. it's great fiction.

I just wish I was faster on the draw to read what the guy said last time. Apparently he's a name-caller.

monokrome · 05-21-2008, 06:19 PM

Murder pictures are legal, because they are simply a picture of a crime that had happened. Child pornography isn't illegal because you have a picture of a crime taking place - it's illegal because that image is the byproduct of the crime.

If someone sold you a drug, you accepted it and it's in your possession. It's illegal (where I live, anyway) to be carrying a bag of marijuanna, even though you may have never smoked it or sold it.

Same basic concept.

The Nightfly · 05-28-2008, 01:32 AM

I read this article this morning and thought it was very relative to this subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm

Quote:

Computer generated abuse 'banned'

Drawings and computer-generated images of child sex abuse would be made illegal under proposals announced by Justice Minister Maria Eagle.

Owners of such images would face up to three years in prison under the plans.

Under the Obscene Publications Act it is illegal to possess photos of child abuse but it is legal to own drawings and computer-generated images.

Ms Eagle said the proposed move would "help close a loophole that we believe paedophiles are using".

The plans are part of the government's response to a public consultation exercise carried out last year.

If we do not address the issues these images raise now it is likely their availability will continue to grow
Ministry of Justice

The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the authorities had "noticed an increase in the existing availability of these images on the internet".

She said: "If we do not address the issues these images raise now it is likely their availability will continue to grow.

"They are often advertised as a legitimate depiction of child sexual abuse."

'Unacceptable' images

The spokeswoman said police and child welfare groups had expressed concern at the "growing increase in availability of these depictions of child sexual abuse".

Ms Eagle said the plans were "not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society".

Shaun Kelly, safeguarding manager for children's charity NCH, said the proposals were a step in the right direction.

He said: "This is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph.

"It adds to the range of measures to help ensure the safeguarding of children and young people."

boink · 06-15-2008, 11:18 PM

what if no child was involved in the production of the images?

for instance, say a very good computer graphics person created their own CG porn like people do with Poser only better ?
or maybe a game like Leisure Suit Larry goes to Kindergarten ?

sick I know but wtf, I didn't start the thread !

ipollux · 07-12-2008, 09:49 PM

I think the argument about watching it being illegal would be that the more people who view it and pay for it, the bigger the market those potential customers are creating for it. It's like drugs. They're illegal, but since there's such a huge market for it, it continues to be made and sold. If enough people want child porn and will pay the right price for it, it will be made. I think that would be the argument as to why viewing it is illegal. Just playing devil's advocate, of course.

sound chaser · 07-30-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

ok, before you tell me what a sick bastard i am and alert the authorities and all that, let's get some things straight:

1. i DO NOT in any way shape or form condone or encourage any kind of child pornography whatsoever. period.

2. i am using child pornography (CP) as an example because it is the most horrific and disgusting thing i can think of.

3. child porn disgusts me, actually makes my stomach hurt. if you are sexually attracted to children, you need to talk to a professional about that and deal with whatever issues you have. no matter how much you lie to yourself, the kid does NOT want to have sex with you. it's rape.

4. cp is not "art" no matter how hard you try to justify it. nothing artistic about a kid with her legs spread open.

4. in the arguement, i will be asking why *i* can't have pics of naked kids. this is for the arguement ONLY. i do not really want pics of naked kids. i am not saying this with a wink and a nod, like hacking info is for "entertainment purposes only." really, child porn makes me angry and nauseous.

are we clear? if you have any doubts, please re-read above. i want to have an intelligent thougth experiment here, ok?

so...for this arguement, the parameters are:

1. by CP i mean pictures of naked kids (14 years old and under) in sexually suggestive positions. porn positions. also kids engaged in a sex act.

2. the actual making of the porn should be illegal, the adults who are taking the pictures or engaged in the sex act with the child should be arrested. that is not in question.

so the question is: is having cp wrong? lets say some adult likes looking at pics of naked kids. why is it wrong to have the pictures, if he ("he" also means she) did not take the pics? what if the adult surfs around the intenet, finds the pics and downloads them, and looks at them in his house, alone. why is that wrong?

murder is wrong, but i can have all the pics of dead people i want. drugs are illegal, but i can have pics of people taking drugs. why can't i have pics of naked kids? why is having a picture that i did not take and i had nothing to do with illegal and wrong?

one arguement against is "cp won't happen if people wouldn't want it." this is false. you can get cp for free, so it's not like people are making money. even if no one wanted to look at it, there would be some guy who likes it and wants to share his hobby and post it/spread it around.

another arguement is "looking at it leads to doing it." i play violent video games where i kill people. i look at violent movies. i look at pictures of dead people and read books about murders. i have not and will not kill someone. same with theft, and other illegal activities. i can look at pictures of naked kids all day and still not want to have sex with them or take pictures of naked kids. so that arguement does not work.

so...the question....why is it wrong if i have child pornography?

discuss....

i know i might get flamed for this, but what they hey i'm big enough to handle it..

i don't think the ownership of child porn should be illegal. but the production of it should be. simply looking at child porn in itself does not violate a child's legal rights. i can't see anywhere in the US Bill of Rights (if we're using the USA as an example) that merely viewing child porn is outlawed.

jewels · 07-30-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sound chaser

i know i might get flamed for this, but what they hey i'm big enough to handle it..

i don't think the ownership of child porn should be illegal. but the production of it should be. simply looking at child porn in itself does not violate a child's legal rights. i can't see anywhere in the US Bill of Rights (if we're using the USA as an example) that merely viewing child porn is outlawed.

No flame, but can you really rationalize that?
Ownership condones the act of production. Without a market of viewers, there would be no reason to produce it.

Redlemon · 07-31-2008, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sound chaser

i can't see anywhere in the US Bill of Rights (if we're using the USA as an example) that merely viewing child porn is outlawed.

This may be the strangest justification that I have ever seen. The Bill of Rights also doesn't say anything about driving drunk; does that justify it?

The_Jazz · 07-31-2008, 06:29 AM

I don't know anyone who's all for open access to pufferfish poison, nerve gas and other incredibly deadly substances. The greater harm to society is too much to allow those to be either manufactured or possessed by the average citizen. That's not in the Bill of Rights either, but US society has dictated that you not be allowed to have them.

Bill O'Rights · 07-31-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sound chaser

i can't see anywhere in the US Bill of Rights (if we're using the USA as an example) that merely viewing child porn is outlawed.

The Bill of Rights spells out what you can, or have the right, to do. Not what you cannot do.

When a law is enacted, it cannot impede upon rights guaranteed to you by the Bill of Rights. And nowhere in the Bill of Rights is an amendment stating that Congress shall pass no laws restricting the fair and free trade of child pornography. And since you do not have the right to child pornography, Congress can pass as many laws as they feel is necessary to restrict it.

MSD · 08-15-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sound chaser

i know i might get flamed for this, but what they hey i'm big enough to handle it..

i don't think the ownership of child porn should be illegal. but the production of it should be. simply looking at child porn in itself does not violate a child's legal rights. i can't see anywhere in the US Bill of Rights (if we're using the USA as an example) that merely viewing child porn is outlawed.

Consumption of a commodity implicitly condones its production and delivery. Except for the people who have the soul-crushing job of viewing and cataloging child porn siezed as evidence and those who see it as evidence in court (plus anyone in the legal process I might have forgotten,) people who view it are consumers of it.

ngdawg · 08-16-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

As revelation states, 'they shall be drunk with the wine of fornication', the wine of the Great Harlot, Diana, the statue of which sits atop the Capitol Building in Washington, DC.

Dude....that's a designed statue by sculptor Thomas Crawford and it's named
The Statue of Freedom.....
Statue of Freedom

Who left the door open?

Iliftrocks · 08-19-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

And it is a good thing we don't have thought-crimes yet, because I imagined Hilary Duff naked and doing certain things with her well before she turned 18... And that shouldn’t be a crime.

To be fair, Hillary was biologically an adult and ready to mate, way before the grand old age of 18. Don't get me wrong as far as arbitrary limits go, 18 is a pretty fair age (Gotta get that diploma...), but physically we are ready for sex, etc. years prior to that age. Wasn't that long ago that the age for consent in a lot of states was closer to 13, which to me seems quite a bit low, even though I am from the south. Of course I believe New York state's was lower than NC's heh.

ASU2003 · 008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iliftrocks

To be fair, Hillary was biologically an adult and ready to mate, way before the grand old age of 18. Don't get me wrong as far as arbitrary limits go, 18 is a pretty fair age (Gotta get that diploma...), but physically we are ready for sex, etc. years prior to that age. Wasn't that long ago that the age for consent in a lot of states was closer to 13, which to me seems quite a bit low, even though I am from the south. Of course I believe New York state's was lower than NC's heh.

And I think there should be different rules for different types of child porn. I think it is wrong, and probably the vast majority of people think the same way, that forcing or paying people under 18 to have sex and photograph or record it would be bad and should be illegal. Even amateur stuff between two high school students should be illegal to distribute.

But even though Hilary was paid to pose for those photographs (and she wasn't naked), she was old enough to know what she was doing in a solo setting. And the controversial statement I will make is that girls under 4 or 5 don't know better or will change enough in a few years that paparazzi or covert pictures of them running around a backyard, taking a bath, or at a beach naked wouldn't effect them. Although I'm not sure how you could tell the difference between a picture of a girl who went to a nude beach with her family versus a girl who was bribed to take off her swimsuit for candy. It is the girls between 6 and 14 that are supposed to be protected by the current child porn laws. It is hard to tell the difference between the picture of a girl that wants to take nude images of herself and the girl that has been abducted and forced to strip.

A lot of it has to do with context and it is hard to figure out. The human form shouldn't be illegal to look at whatever the age. But it is bad to create victims of forced pornography at a young age when judgments and decisions made then could have bigger repercussions later on.

paparora · 08-20-2008, 01:48 AM

"if theres grass on the patch, lets play" - Ali G

Anormalguy · 08-29-2008, 07:51 PM

The person seeking out the CP is fueling the market (be it buying, trading, or whatever). In crimes against children all persons involved should be severely punished.

anti fishstick · 09-03-2008, 03:20 PM

I have another question to ponder:

Due to the digital age and image manipulation, we can now manipulate images so drastically that we can either make a person appear older, or younger.

Given this tool, is it wrong to make pornography using an adult of legal age (18+) and manipulate the image to fit a child porn aesthetic? Would it then be wrong to use a child and manipulate the image to qualify as an adult image? Pictures can be deceiving....

Nisses · 09-04-2008, 02:33 AM

Going one way: 18+ and reworking the image to something younger I could understand...
Going the other way: younger and reworking to something older... Why do something criminal and reprehensible to arrive at a commonplace result you could have gotten with a normal model...

So for myself, I'm only going to answer the first one:
You're still purposefully working to distribute child porn.
You just don't get the extra charges of having actually molested a child while doing so.

In the end you don't hand over a real kid to a pedophile, you hand over images, pictures, paintings... What difference is there? It's still a 2D representation of a child in an unchildlike pose/situation.

Deltona Couple · 09-04-2008, 08:00 AM

I have to admit it is interesting how this thread has changed so much since the original OP. This subject is probably more personal to some than others. Some of us have young children, as do I, and if someone were to try and get them to pose for CP, I would have to personally see that person raped with a 9-iron after it was removed from a 2500 degree forge. However if trying to see things from a distance, and be non personal here, one can only wonder what brings this about in todays society.

In that context, let's try and classify some general areas.
CP as an adult and a child- Most people I think would classify this as anyone over the age of 18, being directly involved in the "act" with a child under the age of 12.
CP as and adult and a teen- Most people I think would classify this as anyone over the age of 18, being directly involved in the "act" with a child between 13 and 16 (I am using 16 as a general stopping point, because in MOST states in the US, the Age of Consent is 17 as an AVERAGE, some being higher, others being lower)
CP as a child with a child- Again, in my opinion, this would be 2 children, under the age of 12 that engage in an "act" with each other.
CP as a teen with a child- 1 under 12, the other between 13 and 16
CP as a teen with a teen- 2 between 13 and 16

Now lets do a general classification of what CP truly is, as the law describes. Different countries, as well as different states in the US have different descriptions of what CP is by their states standard. But MOST states ALL classify a media depiction (photo, video, film, etc) where one or more parties involved are performing an act of sexual gratification (intercourse, masturbation, manual manipulation...etc) now there are several different degrees of this from state to state, but if you will, concede this description for the sake of this argument.

In pretty much all states, the possession of any of these medias are cause for arrest, and possible conviction. So who is technically in possession? what if a gf and bf who are both say 15, use their cel phone to take a picture of them doing something together. Who violated the law? both? the one who owns the phone? there is a fine line here that too many states are overlooking in their crusade to "protect our children". Who was hurt in this case? the boy? the girl? what if both of them wanted to do it, and neither one was coerced? The law doesn't care. They would prosecute the owner of the phone. Not every state would, but where I used to live in Florida, and here in Texas where I now reside, that is who would get into trouble. Here is the problem, what if the phone in question was owned by the parent of one of the teens? The law doesn't actually care. the letter of the law is just that: The law.
Now here is the question I am posing to everyone: Would YOU, looking at this LOGICALLY, not on a personal note, consider that photograph CP? I feel that as long as the two kept it to themselves, then that is their personal business. But if that photograph was published somewhere or shared, then the story can change. this entire subject is so volatile and has so many variations of just the one example I have given. There was a case in another country, I think it was Canada? I SWEAR I wish I could remember where I read this, where this same situation actually occurred. this girl had a cel phone given to her from her parents and she was only 12. She took a picture of herself giving a boyfriend oral sex, and then shared it with some of her friends as some initiation thing. The photo was found on a computer I am assuming, and this is how the law got involved. Now her parents, and the boys parents, as well as the kids themselves are facing criminal charges of possessing CP because the home computers were owned by the parents. Can you all see where I am going with this? You cant just blanket CP as any picture with kids involved in sexual situations. But things can get out of hand if we as parents don't monitor what our kids do not just online anymore, but with these cel phones that take pictures now. I could go on for pages citing so many different situations that could put doubt into ones mind on if a person should be arrested for possessing CP.
So in my opinion I would have to say that each situation needs to be examined differently and closely before passing judgment on anyone. My opinion would be that if it involves an adult over 18, and a child under the AOC for that state, then it would most likely be a punishable offense. But again, there could be so many things that one doesn't know about what happened....This subject is VERY broad in what can be classified as CP that maybe the OP could have been more specific? I really don't know.

WOW, I think this is the longest post I have ever written, please forgive any typos or grammatical/punctuation errors....

WHEW!!

curiousbear · 09-05-2008, 10:06 AM

I did not read the responses of others. My answer "Child porn is dead wrong".

I love seeing children naked. I wish I too could be naked in beaches, pool and some times even home. That is kind of free and natural. I had seen such cute pictures in net, like a family walking naked in beach. It is so serene.

But if you are talking children in sexually suggestive positions etc it is SICK and WRONG. I know kids hug and kiss themselves. But the 'suggestive' pictures if any are WRONG.

If you want a rational explanation, they are too young, once grown up, if they see those pictures, no one knows whether they will think it is cool, sexy, sick, crap. A kid who enjoyed doing it still can run in to severe guilt and trauma after it completely grows up. You dont know whether that kid will become an actor, doctor, scientist, prostitute, or president. It is too early to put a kid through porn. Its like you ask a kid all its entire education only in one subject and never expose to any other subject.
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 01 : 12 : 24-----
It suddenly occured to me. I like reading erotic stories where teen kids have fun. Some of it are incest. no pictures only text. Is that WRONG? I dont know. I always liked reading them. Some of them even indulge one kid and one adult both in mutual interest exploring, teasing, massaging, masturbating, etc.

skizziks · 10-01-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

.....
Ownership condones the act of production. Without a market of viewers, there would be no reason to produce it.

I disagree with that. Pedophiles will continue to have sex with children and tape it and take pictures, if only for themselves. They then find others like them and they trade. They aren't producing it for a market, they don't make money off it, the kiddie porn is just an extra bonus by-product that makes it's way to the real world sometimes.

jewels · 10-01-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skizziks

I disagree with that. Pedophiles will continue to have sex with children and tape it and take pictures, if only for themselves. They then find others like them and they trade. They aren't producing it for a market, they don't make money off it, the kiddie porn is just an extra bonus by-product that makes it's way to the real world sometimes.

Financial market? For the most part, probably so. But there's still a nice market of those who are merely voyeurs who are willing to pay some big bucks.

07-14-2007, 12:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Child pornography is wrong based on the understanding that children cannot give reasonable consent because they haven't developed the cognitive ability to comprehend what they're consenting to so far as sexuality. That's the reason behind statutory rape, and the idea behind preventing kiddy porn is the creation of and subsequent purchasing of the child pornography is abuse. From those who are taking the picture to those who look at them, they're all in the business of exploiting the children. __________________ "A professor at the University of Wisconsin says he's found a way to take the bitterness out of cheddar cheese. Now, if he can only find a way to remove the arrogance from Wheat Thins." - Jimmy Fallon, Saturday Night Live

07-14-2007, 01:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Bringing a Chill to the Tropics Super Moderator Location: Lion City	In the photo of a murder, the murder is the crime, not the photo. Therefore, the photo, while possibly tasteless, is not implicated in the crime. In child photography, the photo itself is the crime. It is in the act of taking a picture of a child that commits the crime (amongst other things). In viewing the photo, your are implicated in sharing in the crime. It doesn't matter if it was taken yesterday or 50 years ago. It's still participating in a crime. __________________ "Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen." - Conan O'Brien

07-14-2007, 02:01 AM	#5 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	half the 18 year old girls on the internet who spread clams for thier ex boyfriends probably didn't consent to the picture being posted on the internet either. Is it simply "ok" because the viewer doesn't know any better? I dunno, the lines between ok and not ok are pretty bendable, moral is subjective, people justify downloading music all the time and want the RIAA and MPAA's heads on a stick over them trying to enforce copyright law. The only reason child porn is considered "bad" is because the society we're in tries to protect/preserve innocence for some reason, be it preventing them from being exposed to violence, porn, swear language, or whatever. fact of the matter is if you left society and civilization out of it and went straight to the biology of the situation, Humans are STILL a race that have sex for pleasure without the intent to reproduce. One of two species if I remember. I'm not defending child porn though, I certainly don't have any interest in seeing underdeveloped females in whatever act thier photographer convinced them would be a good idea. now, there were 13/14 y/o's that I mistook for at LEAST 17 when I was an 18 year old. from a biology standpoint, that would indicate they had developed something which appealed to my base instinct to mate, for pleasure or for reproduction, who knows? its subconscious. perhaps some would argue that our standards for beauty are "conditioned" by what we see in our parents, on tv, and other influences, some would just argue that its genetics. this is a very very complicated subject if you dive beneath the surface. that being said, again, I don't want to watch child porn, I don't condone it, but i'd be lying if I said there wasn't a point in my life where a 13 year old didn't make me feel funny during my time of puberty. If you get what i'm saying, politely as I can. anyways, it's also a fairly easy cause to "champion" as raiding some weird dudes house and computer isn't exactly "in the line of fire" unlike violence and drugs. It's easy to look like you have a handle on the situation when most of the people who participate in such acts are really just failing to be fully integrated in to societal norms, not particularly violent or cruel. I think every culture is different, some countries show nudity on public access television, some dont, some legalize drugs, some dont, some have low age restrictions on sex, some dont. you could take amsterdam for example as "different" but I dunno if you can say either stance is "right" since right is merely opinion. if they really wanted to sterilize crime and the psychological influence it has on convincing the kind of people who commit said crimes to do them, they wouldn't have anything beyond PG rated movies in this country, and it would be the equivlant of an R rating now. personally, I kinda wonder if people who are psychologically fucked in the head from being previously sexually abused are only that way because people treated them like they were a victim, or a freak, that alone has its own psychological implications. Last edited by Shauk; 07-14-2007 at 02:09 AM..

07-14-2007, 03:59 AM	#8 (permalink)
cybersharp Insane	Not that I am advocating it, but I make the very obvious point that both "right and wrong" are each a matter of perspective. The different perspective of peoples coming from differentiating points of view. The beliefs of people are both inherent and based upon experience through the society in which they where educated. __________________ 0PtIcAl

07-14-2007, 08:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
Push-Pull I'll ask when I'm ready.... Location: Firmly in the middle....	Perhaps we could expand this to include those that use "look-alikes". Even though everyone is of age, and the persons obtaining such porn are not techincally breaking the law, is it still "wrong"? On one hand, it seems that the end user has gone to length to be sure that nothing illegal has transpired. One the other hand, I could never see myself considering it "acceptable". __________________ "No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me- "Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown- DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer-

Advocate's Useful Stuff

20101121

is child pornography wrong?

No comments:

Post a Comment

07-14-2007, 03:29 AM	#6 (permalink)
katyg Tilted Location: leeds, uk	The media is obsessed with youth, I personally feel that the explosion in child pornography is a natural progression of our perverted society - everything young, pretty is deemed cool, sexy etc and so men search for harder stuff, younger stuff, until they sometimes end up here. It scares me, I feel that society has gone wrong somewhere. It's not right, however we look at it. Children should be innocent as long as possible, people should grow up and be nurtured, not salivated over.

07-14-2007, 05:35 AM	#10 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	If you knowingly buy a stolen television you will be charged with a crime, as you have willingly advanced the trade in stolen goods. Very few in this society consider theft a good thing, therefore we make laws that create an adverse atmosphere in hopes of stopping the action. Similarly, society does not find the exploitation of children acceptable, thus laws were created to quell the practice. The stigma attached to those who trade in this aspect of sexuality is also a direct result of the general disgust most people feel towards such action. In short, yes it is wrong....our society says so. If you wish to dwell in the society it is highly recommended you pay attention to its taboos.

07-14-2007, 04:47 PM	#16 (permalink)
MexicanOnABike Location: up north	what's interesting is: are drawings of naked kids wrong? would having a massive collection of cp but in drawing form be illegal? it's the same thing but without harming the kids in any way. i'm saying this because KILLING someone is illegal right? but wanting to kill someone and doing it in a video game is completely fine. so this is like saying, I love killing people on my computer just like watching cp on my computer should be fine. i guess i don't know why it's so wrong to watch. i understand acting on it but it shouldn't be that much of a problem the other way. what do you think? __________________ █ █ Movie Reviews - Ratings longest thread ever!

07-14-2007, 10:01 PM	#20 (permalink)
Crack Misanthropic Location: Ohio! yay!	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8 subject of a routine __________________ Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex. ~Halx

07-15-2007, 01:41 AM	#21 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	It is an interesting point. However - out of respect, I would suggest that pictures of murder victims should also be restricted. I would like to think that if I was murdered, my picture - potentially naked/muliated and taken without permission, could not be splashed around the place. This true. But unsatisfying philosophically. Don't you think? I mean - it's no good arguing that something should not be done, because it breaks a taboo. Exposing an ankle might be against a taboo. Women going out without without a black tent might be against a taboo. See where I'm headed. Ok though, while the taboo thing falls flat - I agree with you re participation in a crime. But there's perhaps two aspects. The legal aspect and the moral aspect. Last edited by Nimetic; 07-15-2007 at 01:46 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-15-2007, 12:35 PM	#23 (permalink)
katyg Tilted Location: leeds, uk	Isn't this really a debate about moral realism? And therefore whether there are some things that are inherently right or wrong? Basically some of these posts seem to question whether just because the bulk of a society finds something abhorrent should we all? I believe that even if the whole world thought kiddie porn was ok I would still find something wrong with it - I have mentioned before on here that I find hardcore porn offensive anyway and in the current sexual climate it seems more and more acceptable. Therefore there are people who even when something is found more acceptable by society they still question it's morality.

07-15-2007, 09:36 PM	#24 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: possibly ohio	I think it is a grey area for sure. And there are different severities to the pictures. A picture of an adult having sex with a girl under 16 is wrong and should be illegal. A 14 year old guy having a picture of his 14 year old girl friend should not be illegal. But if an adult forced or paid two kids to have sex, then that is wrong. And it should be ok if I took a picture of myself when I was 12 and kept the picture. Basically, I would think that if the person wasn't forced into it and it is just softcore, nude pictures, it isn't that big of a deal. Hardcore, rape, compensated, or forced pictures involving minors should be illegal and the people that look at them need to get help. The problem is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I wouldn't want to look at cp because the jail time/fine plus being branded as a sex offender for a long time. Your whole life gets f’ed up. You might get disowned by your family, your friends, co-workers, spouse,… And you might not have even done anything. I always question when some politician gets caught with this on their computer if it wasn’t just planted. Because they lose all believability once this information gets out there. But, I could fly to some foreign countries and pay some young girls for sex or just to pose nude for me and the law doesn't have a problem with that. Just so I don’t take pictures or video tape it.* (*I personally wouldn’t do this, but a TV show uncovered this happening) Here is another situation. I was at a nude beach one time and it was pretty busy. After about 30 minutes or so, a family with two kids under 10 put down their towels about 20 feet away from me. If I had a picture of them, I could go to jail (although it was a public place...). But since I just saw them in person (because you can't look down all the time) it isn't a problem with the law. And it is a good thing we don't have thought-crimes yet, because I imagined Hilary Duff naked and doing certain things with her well before she turned 18... And that shouldn’t be a crime.

07-17-2007, 11:26 AM	#28 (permalink)
pornclerk Insane Location: Ontario, Canada	I think you may have already answered your own question (with many good reasons) about why child pornography is wrong. __________________ Who wants a twig when you can have the whole tree?

07-20-2007, 04:54 AM	#30 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	After reading that long article there I have thought about it and I feel that their calculations may be incorrect. There was no mention in ANY of the article that states if the criminals had molested said persons BEFORE or AFTER posessing the child pornography. So I am thinking the stats are skewed possibly. Did they get the pornography, and THEN decide to molest? or did they molest, and then decide that they wanted to porn AFTER the fact? There is not enough information in the study to back EITHER one. So I am not sure what this study actually proves other than the fact that many molesters also have the porn.... I do agree that child porn has become an epidemic of DISTURBING proportions! However I don't see this study having proven much of anything in what they APPEAR to be trying to say. I personally think that the penalties for possession of this should be MUCH more severe than it currently is. __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

07-24-2007, 08:11 PM	#31 (permalink)
squeeeb part of the problem Location: hic et ubique	At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires — exactly the opposite. “Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.” to me, this means he was already bent towards that, and is using the porn as an excuse. i can look at child porn every day for a month, and even after vomiting a few times, i still wouldn't want to have sex with a kid. i don't find children attractive, and no amount of looking at them will change that. sure the porn fuels the fire, but the fire has to be there first. __________________ onward to mayhem!

07-25-2007, 03:24 AM	#32 (permalink)
mixedmedia Junkie Location: Florida	Pedophilia is a very compelling and obsessive mental disorder so I don't think it would be any surprise at all that those who view child pornography have also molested children in real life and/or vice versa. It's not a fringe thing that large numbers of people fool around with and look at on the internet for kicks. Just the act of searching for child pornography is a full-on manifestation of the desire to have sex with children. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

09-04-2007, 12:20 PM	#34 (permalink)
Racnad Crazy Location: Washington State	Much of what is posted to the Internet is more for ego than financial gain. The big draw of youTube is posting your home video and a week later seeing 20,000 viewings. And who on TFP doesn't love posting a new thread, coming back in 30 minutes and seeing 30 replies? We're not making any money from this. It makes us feel good that other people are interested in what we post. So even if someone is downloading child porn for free, the person posting it is getting off on the fact that others are downloading it, and that in itself encourages more CP to be produced, and more children to be victimized. As for look-alikes, I believe that is legal. The draw of "barely legal" and teen magazines & websites is that the models look like they could be 14 or 15. They have to say "All models are 18 or older" because if they don't, the feds WILL be breaking down their doors. How about drawings and text stories depicting adults having sex with children age 14, 12, 8 or 5? Is there are rational for outlawing this content, even though no actual children are involved in the creation of this material?

09-06-2007, 05:39 PM	#36 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	I seem to recall having been attracted to children when I was a child. My idea of how things might be different: Kiddie porn for the kiddies And other things for "adults". I refuse to draw age lines - that's up to the legislators and the "judges". Our souls will survive for as long as they can. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

09-13-2007, 02:38 AM	#38 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	what defines right and wrong though? shrug your religion? your morals? where do you think that came from? it didn't come from you, it was taught to you. just like how you might feel a slight twinge of panic when you see someone doing drugs, or underage drinking, or breaking a "norm" or a law that you "believe" in. I'll tell ya what, Faith is believing, and believing empowers otherwise powerless laws and figureheads into powerful beings, it transitions control and responsibility from yourself to a faceless entity. its hard to explain my viewpoint, but to me, it's less about being right or wrong, but understanding how it connects to everything. I'm not so good with metaphors on this particular topic but I would say that if you went back to your infancy, when you were "innocent" and you retained your ignorance of morality and social norms, you'd still probably just shit and piss all over the carpet as much as your typical non domesticated mammal. You'd think nothing of it, if you ever came face to face to your socialized counterpart, you'd both think oddly of eachother. I mean its a weird example but take Japan, Pubic hair is taboo there, I don't know how deep of a taboo it is or if its on par as far as "offensive" nature as the concept of child porn to americans. If no one ever taught you that child porn was wrong, or if, in some alternate reality, it was acceptable (this is a hard thing to imagine as it is very taboo and illegal in American society) then you'd just have it being a case of "IT IS WHAT IT IS" not what adjectives you use to describe it, thats all imparted from your perception. Last edited by Shauk; 09-13-2007 at 02:41 AM..

09-13-2007, 06:47 AM	#39 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	"The air is the air, what can be done?" Of course, someone who was convinced he knew was "prepared" to jump into the conversational gap and offer something called a tri-ox compound. And the fearless leader allowed it. Talk about liberals! Child porn IS WRONG, simply because taking sexual advantage of kids is wrong. I can hardly believe this is number 39. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

3-2007, 08:57 AM	#41 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Since children can't protect themselves from sexual predators by nature, and anyone who gets off on obviously under aged children having sex is a true pervert it only makes sense that having child pornography should be illegal since in this case the viewer is creating a market for exploitation. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-14-2007, 02:20 AM	#43 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	kind of like how people define themselves by what they are "not" instead of what they "are"

09-17-2007, 12:40 PM	#49 (permalink)
Datalife2 Insane	Kids are having sex younger than ever before. I am totally against child porn but with the way the world is changing at this extreme speed...gay marriage and multiple divorce people,.. i can see the world getting more screwed up as it already is..whats next beastiality legalization...the world has no shame anymore. __________________ where's my lighter?

09-17-2007, 01:38 PM	#51 (permalink)
Racnad Crazy Location: Washington State	When I was in high school during the late 1970s, I thought I was one of the few left my age who wasn't having sex. Oh, wait! I did have sex wto tmes with one girl when I was 15, then not again until after high school. Now I know that in my day, most of us in high school were not having sex, but we thought everyone else was. Recent surveys of teen sexual behavoir show that a few teens age 13-16 are having sex, but most aren't. This doesn't sound that different than when I was in high school. In recent years there have been stories circulating about blowjob parites or "rainbow" parties in which a bunch of guys stand in a line and girls take turns giving them blowjobs. There was a novel about this, a few Oprah! shows and a series on Showtime I saw where a teen character when to one. But when journalists try to track these down, all they find are kids who've heard about other kids or kids at other schools who've been to them. No oen can find kids who've actualy been to them. Anything than makes juicy gossip or scares parents gets passed around, whether it is true or not. One good barometer of teen sexuakl activity is the teen pregnancy rate, and that is down since the 1980s.

09-19-2007, 06:07 PM	#52 (permalink)
nonplussed Tilted	The first rule of morality is "do no harm". Child pornography is wrong because the existance of the images is hurtful to the young subjects. Would they feel better knowing that people are looking at the pictures or would they feel better knowing that they have all been destroyed? For the record, I think they would want the pictures destroyed. I anticipate that you would argue that this logic is flawed because the young subjects have no way of knowing that you are looking at the pictures. My answer is that morality means doing the right thing even if no one is looking. But... if someone past the age of consent gives you child porn featuring them in an episode from the past, then there is nothing wrong with viewing the images

09-22-2007, 03:10 PM	#55 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I think that if having sex with a child was accepted in society, then the act of doing it would not be surrounded with secrecy, deception and shame. In turn, the result would not be damaging, like it is frequently portrayed to be. Sex would just mean a lot different things to us. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

09-22-2007, 04:17 PM	#56 (permalink)
Sharon Coy, sultry and... naughty! Location: Across the way	You can't compare CP with pictures of murdered victims. Those pictures don't encourage murders in the same way as CP encourages child abuse. A closer parallel might be comparing them with snuff films. If people were seeking out and paying for snuff films, that would probably end up leading to more murders in the same way CP would end up producing more child abuse. To answer the question about whether it's wrong... sexual abuse of children fucks them up, in most cases for the rest of their lives. CP causes child abuse pretty much without exception, and therefore I think it is wrong. Which I suppose brings us to the tangent of whether porn is wrong if it fucks up its participants (and in many cases it probably does). But we already have enough threads on that.

09-25-2007, 01:45 PM	#59 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	This whole thread had become an interesting discussion on a very real and disturbing condition. I have already stated my general thoughts on the subject, and since some people have brought up an interesting point on society progression, I will add this: We as a Western society are trying to do our best to protect the children as a whole against child exploitation(child labour as well as child pornography) As a general rule, most states support age of concent at around 17, and child porn laws for anyone under the age of 18. I have heard many comments that generally state "if anyone has thoughts of having sex with a minor, then they are sick." And in TODAY'S society, I would tend to agree. However It is a progression of sorts. It was less than 100 years ago that in our own country, girls were considered "old maids" if they were not married and poping out children by the age of 14. Of course this was also based on the fact that the average age of death was only in the 40s. So as we progress in lifestyle and developmental progression we have changed the societal norm to a more reasonable age. Who knows? In another 100 years we may raise the age of concent to 21 for sex! Then are we suddenly going to say that those who have sex with a 20 year old are sick?...lol. I hope I am getting my point across...but do you all see what I mean? __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

09-26-2007, 11:51 AM	#62 (permalink)
Sharon Coy, sultry and... naughty! Location: Across the way	Typing on my laptop while lying on my bed isn't great for my accuracy!

09-27-2007, 01:36 AM	#63 (permalink)
Fast Forward Banned Location: Tramtária	At least you didn't complain about me adding an extra letter to spice it up.

09-27-2007, 07:55 AM	#64 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Sex with a sexually mature (note I said sexually) child is one thing. I don't approve of it but more from a protection aspect, 13-18 year olds tend to be dumbasses, 18+ slightly less dumbass. Sex with a sexually immature child, no grass on the field, is fucked up. The first is fluid. Not even every state in America agrees where the line is, so its all over the place world wide. There can be valid arguments on both sides. I think its the wealth and the 'extended' childhoods in the west which push that line to 18, where in some impoverished nation, 14 makes more sense. The second is where I put the perverts. So which group is being discussed here? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-27-2007, 08:16 AM	#65 (permalink)
mixedmedia Junkie Location: Florida	I agree with you and I would assume we are talking about the second. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

09-29-2007, 09:49 PM	#67 (permalink)
orionnebula Tilted	This is a great question... Is child porno wrong? Of course for child (pre-puberty) that is a definate YES. As for teens, the answer is more vague. It all depends on the notion of maturity and legal consent. Currently 18 years is the "ideal age" to mature, but for some 14 would be ok while for other, they would puss it back to 21. If two "underage" teens where to do porn by themselves, would it be wrong that is hard question, for the act itself, I don't think it would be. But who would watch it: perverts. So this make it wrong. But for the first situation, it will probably never happen without the persuasion ($$$) by a sex producer and if a major is involved with minor then it is wrong. But is adult porn (especially barely-legal type) right because some of the actress are not adult (and it shows in the making of on the dvds)

09-30-2007, 08:21 PM	#70 (permalink)
albania Psycho	In this case I’m considering a naked picture and for arguments sake let’s suppose that regardless of whatever method the picture was taken the child was not traumatized or deeply affected. This topic is somewhat interesting. I think it’s safe to say that child pornography is wrong, but the interesting part is why. It’s almost wrongness by association; there is nothing wrong with the human body. However, there is agreement in the supposition that you can look at the human body in an evil or perverse way. The crux of the matter stands in practicality. It certainly is possible to look at child pornography and not be a pedophile, but there is no one that has the capacity to differentiate a pedophile and a non-pedophile who both watch child porn. So here it is reason that binds us. Child pornography is wrong because to allow otherwise is to have to allow for enough doubt that makes it logically inconsistent to jail someone for looking at child pornography. (hehe, reread this and summed it up to myself this way: It’s wrong because if it wasn’t wrong we couldn’t put people in jail for it. Kind of circular...but it made sense to me at the time.) A slight tangent: I remember hearing once that giving people access to pornography of rape (anime) lead to less rape. The case considered was Japan. The counterargument given was that the society in Japan forces women to keep rape a secret, i.e. it’s not that this type of porn was somehow keeping crimes of rape low in Japan but rather they just went unreported. I don’t know enough about Japan to say either way, but what if it was true that child pornography (cartoon or what have you) lead to some pedophiles not acting on their urges? Would it be wrong to in that case? Sorry, if this was brought up before. I’m slightly sleepy and didn’t read through every post.

10-02-2007, 08:51 AM	#72 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	OK. based on alot of the posts here, I have a question on the same general lines here. I would truely like an honest answer from everyone. Here is the senario: (not a REAL situation, but I am using myself as an example for clarity) Lets say I was a child in today's society, with access to digital cameras, and video. Now I am 13 years old, and me and my 13 year old girlfriend think it would be fun to take a video of us having sex together. We make the video, and it gets shoved into the closet. 20 years later, where I would be 33 years old, I find the video hidden in a box. I then watch the video, remembering who it was of....Now am I a sick person if watching that video turns me on? considering it was ME in the video in the first place? I am honestly curious how everyones own opinion was. Put yourself in the situation instead of me....how does it look from your perspective? because to me, I don't see it being pedopheliac of me, where if i watched a video of someone ELSE, then I would say I would be that way if it turned me on. Thoughts? __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison