Should Existing Child Porn be Legalized?

[Atikaya]

There is evidence that Internet porn reduces rape (http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais) . According to Lansburg, "A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth." Lansburg even claims that the release of violent movies reduces violence and crime.

The hypothesis for this result is that the availability of pornography allows sexually aroused people to satiate their desires indoors in front of a computer. If the pornography were not available, the individual would have to look for an alternative outlet for his sexual desires, and these alternative outlets may involve the rape of innocent women. Likewise, there are those who have a desire for violence, and violent movies may satiate that desire indoor in front of a television screen. The violent individual then doesn't need to express his anger and violence in public.

Child porn is banned presumably because its creation involves the abuse of a child. Legalizing child porn may stimulate its production, which leads to more child abuse.

Suppose the government banned the production of further child porn to prevent any further child abuse yet kept a national database of child pornography that already exists. This national database of child porn is freely available to the public so that members of the population with pedophilic tendencies can satiate their desires in private without actually harming any children.

Because no new child porn is produced, no child is abused. Because pedophiles consume existing child porn, this will perhaps decrease child molestation in a way analogous to the decrease in rape and crime following the release of porn and violent movies.

What is required for this argument to be sound is evidence that availability of child porn results in less child molestation. Some will argue this is not the case, that child porn actually encourages pedophiles to act on their instincts. However, if the government takes the policy philosophy that they should ban anything that can encourage someone to do something illegal, then shouldn't violent movies also be banned because they can encourage people to murder?

stupid white folk study
you are all pedos i swear
divorce rate 60%
there is something wrong with the white folks and that is their filthy minds
they will sell their own grandma to make some money and spend it on sex
sex sex sex moneygrabbers moneygrabbers

the only good thing about white peeps is their fine blonde chicks and some nice lesbian&interracial porno

 

[The Heretic]

I don't know what it is lately, why we have seen thread after thread advocating child porn, or pedo rights or something along those lines, but I am tired of it. I have come to the conclusion that it does no good to participate in such discussions as the person who starts them is usually some sick pedo that can't be talked to and is just seeking whatever legitimization they can find. I don't know if you are the same guy every time or if there is more than one of you, but as far as I am concerned you aren't welcome here and I think I speak for the majority, probably almost everybody here.

I've got news for you guy; you aren't going to find it here and from now on I am just going to be putting your threads, posts and alts on ignore when I see them.

 

[Fantasies_only]

This promises to be a fun-filled thread.

Did you think I would stay out of this thread?

No, I don't think real child porn should be made legal, however virtual child porn is another thing.
The ones who distribute and display virtual child porn ("Virtual Art"), have the intent of fooling the recipient (or downloader) into thinking that it is real child porn.
The creator and possessor have no such intent, so if it's created for personal use, without public display, yes, virtual child porn (not made with or based on a real child) should be legal.

The PROTECT Act of 2003 also outlaws all forms of art (see Wikipedia for definitions).
Comic Book Art, Art, Digital Art, Computer Art, Fine Art, Modern Art, Interactive Art, 3D Art ("3D Art" involves holograms which was not thought of at the time of signing).
According to Wikipedia (which includes "Vector Art" for computer programming), all artforms are considered free speech, protected by the constitution (the ESRB made a mistake moving up the Elder Scrolls rating).
These artforms (including lolicon) should not have been in the bill.

Japan also has a ban on lolicon, as well as Canada, and the UK is also considering banning it.
Shouldn't there be some kind of petition to stop this, and would it work?

 

[Fantasies_only]

I don't know what it is lately, why we have seen thread after thread advocating child porn, or pedo rights or something along those lines, but I am tired of it. I have come to the conclusion that it does no good to participate in such discussions as the person who starts them is usually some sick pedo that can't be talked to and is just seeking whatever legitimization they can find. I don't know if you are the same guy every time or if there is more than one of you, but as far as I am concerned you aren't welcome here and I think I speak for the majority, probably almost everybody here.

I've got news for you guy; you aren't going to find it here and from now on I am just going to be putting your threads, posts and alts on ignore when I see them.

Sorry, that was me (the first poster in this thread was not), but I am not advocating child porn, in fact I am against it (see above post).

 

[JustSkye]

Did you think I would stay out of this thread?

No, I don't think real child porn should be made legal, however virtual child porn is another thing.
The ones who distribute and display virtual child porn ("Virtual Art"), have the intent of fooling the recipient (or downloader) into thinking that it is real child porn.
The creator and possessor have no such intent, so if it's created for personal use, without public display, yes, virtual child porn (not made with or based on a real child) should be legal.

The PROTECT Act of 2003 also outlaws all forms of art (see Wikipedia for definitions).
Comic Book Art, Art, Digital Art, Computer Art, Fine Art, Modern Art, Interactive Art, 3D Art ("3D Art" involves holograms which was not thought of at the time of signing).
According to Wikipedia (which includes "Vector Art" for computer programming), all artforms are considered free speech, protected by the constitution (the ESRB made a mistake moving up the Elder Scrolls rating).
These artforms (including lolicon) should not have been in the bill.

Japan also has a ban on lolicon, as well as Canada, and the UK is also considering banning it.
Shouldn't there be some kind of petition to stop this, and would it work?

Holy crap. Not you again.

 

[garbage can]

There is evidence that Internet porn reduces rape (http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais) . According to Lansburg, "A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth." Lansburg even claims that the release of violent movies reduces violence and crime.

The hypothesis for this result is that the availability of pornography allows sexually aroused people to satiate their desires indoors in front of a computer. If the pornography were not available, the individual would have to look for an alternative outlet for his sexual desires, and these alternative outlets may involve the rape of innocent women. Likewise, there are those who have a desire for violence, and violent movies may satiate that desire indoor in front of a television screen. The violent individual then doesn't need to express his anger and violence in public.

Child porn is banned presumably because its creation involves the abuse of a child. Legalizing child porn may stimulate its production, which leads to more child abuse.

Suppose the government banned the production of further child porn to prevent any further child abuse yet kept a national database of child pornography that already exists. This national database of child porn is freely available to the public so that members of the population with pedophilic tendencies can satiate their desires in private without actually harming any children.

Because no new child porn is produced, no child is abused. Because pedophiles consume existing child porn, this will perhaps decrease child molestation in a way analogous to the decrease in rape and crime following the release of porn and violent movies.

What is required for this argument to be sound is evidence that availability of child porn results in less child molestation. Some will argue this is not the case, that child porn actually encourages pedophiles to act on their instincts. However, if the government takes the policy philosophy that they should ban anything that can encourage someone to do something illegal, then shouldn't violent movies also be banned because they can encourage people to murder?

Find another fucking forum ....will ya?

 

[Fantasies_only]

Find another fucking forum ....will ya?

Norak is not me.
I have only one E-mail account and only one IP, so I can't create another account here even if I wanted to, which I don't.

 

[bronzeage]

Norak is not me.
I have only one E-mail account and only one IP, so I can't create another account here even if I wanted to, which I don't.

Email him and the two of you can sign up for the Prexisting Child Porn Masturbation Program together.

You will be issued an ID card which will give you access to a special room in the basement of the nearest Federal Courthouse, where once a week for 30 minutes you may view child porn certified to have been produced before 1990. All persons portrayed in the porn are now adults and have signed waivers allowing you and other pedophile to view them on electronic media, engaged in sexual acts which were recorded when they were children.

If you believe you need more than 30 minutes or more than once a week to keep your desire to victimise a child under control, you will need to file form W-JOU812 with the local federal attourey for approval.

 

[Hand_Pict]

I simply can't see (other than for those with paedophilic tendencies) why anyone would bring this up.

I'll stop saying this in the next day or so - but as a noob here - regardless of forum, the perceived content (and presumably the perceived mindset of the members) - deviants like Norak will naturally be hunted down, condemned and simply hated for the sick bastards that they are.

NORAK and other sympathisers - just fuck off....

I'd initially thought I'd write a longer diatribe about your post, comments and those who also find your argument flawed, weak and revolting. To be honest - your simply not worth the time.

I'm rarely disgusted - but it's people like you that remind me of that particular emotion.

The miserable existance you already have peddling this trash will undoubtedly become exponentially worse - which in itself is a comfort to me.

 

[Guest]

The whole idea that pedophiles would be somehow "helped" by having an outlet (and therefore validation) for their sexual urges is completely insane. The best treatment for a pedophile would be to guide them toward understanding that their sexual development has been stunted and help them reprogram themselves for healthy interaction with adults.

 

[rosc99]

No, It shouldn't be legalized...dont be so bloody stupid...I started to read though this thread a little bit yesterday. I totally agree with Bronzeage's comments. How could someone possibly suggest giving these deviants some kind of internet outlet for their sick thoughts and actions.It wouldn't cure them, "thats not possible" and thats the words of a pedo after 10 years of supposed rehabilatation......and as for the rape stats getting lower, maybe we are just getting better at catching them hence a bit more of a deterent. The explosion of " the world wide web " and really good advances in DNA and forensic sciences used in crime happened within a few years of each other

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Ulaven, A_J says you're a little man and something about a hard on. I wasn't paying attention. But I think it was an insult. Or maybe he's coming on to you.

What UD was a classic tell of Rand's second-rater. The idea here is to abandon government and take back the right of revenge for the individual, to remove reason and replace it with emotion. Instead of meeting reason with reason UD meets reason with emotion. So, instead of addressing my questions he counters with my daughter with the two-fold purpose of proving me either a hypocrite or a heartless bastard, both of which are anathema to Left.

The reason he's on ignore is continual fallacious argument that begins with ad Hominem or ad Misericordiam and quickly descends to the level of ad Hominem...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

No, It shouldn't be legalized...dont be so bloody stupid...I started to read though this thread a little bit yesterday. I totally agree with Bronzeage's comments. How could someone possibly suggest giving these deviants some kind of internet outlet for their sick thoughts and actions.It wouldn't cure them, "thats not possible" and thats the words of a pedo after 10 years of supposed rehabilatation......and as for the rape stats getting lower, maybe we are just getting better at catching them hence a bit more of a deterent. The explosion of " the world wide web " and really good advances in DNA and forensic sciences used in crime happened within a few years of each other

In fact, we've gotten SO good at dealing with the rat bastards that they are now approving, even forcing them to live under bridges in South Florida since the good citizens discovered that housing goes hand-in-hand with schools and churches and if you just make the children's "safe" zone big enough, there's no way they can get housing (and we've stamped a huge-ass scarlet letter on them to preclude earning a decent wage under decent condition). We won't imprison them for life, that would be cruel; we want them to REALLY suffer, because nothing is worse than a crime against a child...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

And yet, we somehow feel we've come a long way from our days of "Christian" crusading...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

The whole idea that pedophiles would be somehow "helped" by having an outlet (and therefore validation) for their sexual urges is completely insane. The best treatment for a pedophile would be to guide them toward understanding that their sexual development has been stunted and help them reprogram themselves for healthy interaction with adults.

As you can see, like Global Warming, the "consensus" is that there's nothing you can do to fix "those" people...

They must be under constant assault.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

What UD was a classic tell of Rand's second-rater. The idea here is to abandon government and take back the right of revenge for the individual, to remove reason and replace it with emotion. Instead of meeting reason with reason UD meets reason with emotion. So, instead of addressing my questions he counters with my daughter with the two-fold purpose of proving me either a hypocrite or a heartless bastard, both of which are anathema to Left.

The reason he's on ignore is continual fallacious argument that begins with ad Hominem or ad Misericordiam and quickly descends to the level of ad Hominem...

You really must get out more, and read something other than Ayn Rand.

Your questions were designed to evoke a specific response, to set yourself upon a vantage point from which to snipe at one person in particular about their fiction, your usual target when addressing this issue, Dixon Carter Lee. I can only imagine because he has at some point made you look the complete fool on one or more subjects, not that it's a tough thing to do mind you.

I saw it coming as soon as you started steering the thread toward the use of what you consider child porn (in this case erotica set in a high school) in fiction. The discussion wasn't about fiction or CGI representations of "children", it was about real children being exploited in sexual situations.

You engaged in a running hypothetical in an attempt to garner support for yourself and when called on your bullshit you suddenly had 'other things to do'.. Typical and expected of you when backed into a corner on any subject.

You were fishing for someone to ally yourself with in your little crusade against DCL by playing at "devil's advocate". You aren't nearly as clever as you imagine yourself to be A_J. The reason that I'm on ignore is because I continually call you on your bullshit and ask questions that you can't answer without backpedaling over your own arguments. In short, you're a fucking coward.

Now tell me that I'm on ignore, as if I don't know, and as if I care.

 

[Fantasies_only]

STOP THIS WITCH HUNT NOW!
Norak has posted an article which has nothing to do with him.
He didn't say if he supports this idea or not, but the article was actually talking about pornography in general.

Although I believe with controlled use within the right circumstances it can be a useful tool (drink multiple cups of coffee every 4 hours of every day for 3 or 4 weeks, and you lose all interest in coffee), I don't think personal use without supervision will do anything.
The hypersexual (Don Juan Syndrome) might actually see porn as an outlet for sexual fantasies that encourage this behavior, but in the hands of a sex therapist/psychiatrist it can be very useful (usually combined with anti depressants).

Note: Anime (not hentai) fan service (public nudity included) has been used for other studies of this type (sexualizing and objectifying minors included in study).
http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2006/10/31/pornography-and-rape/

 

[GranniesJizz]

There is evidence that Internet porn reduces rape (http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais) . According to Lansburg, "A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth." Lansburg even claims that the release of violent movies reduces violence and crime.

The hypothesis for this result is that the availability of pornography allows sexually aroused people to satiate their desires indoors in front of a computer. If the pornography were not available, the individual would have to look for an alternative outlet for his sexual desires, and these alternative outlets may involve the rape of innocent women. Likewise, there are those who have a desire for violence, and violent movies may satiate that desire indoor in front of a television screen. The violent individual then doesn't need to express his anger and violence in public.

Child porn is banned presumably because its creation involves the abuse of a child. Legalizing child porn may stimulate its production, which leads to more child abuse.

Suppose the government banned the production of further child porn to prevent any further child abuse yet kept a national database of child pornography that already exists. This national database of child porn is freely available to the public so that members of the population with pedophilic tendencies can satiate their desires in private without actually harming any children.

Because no new child porn is produced, no child is abused. Because pedophiles consume existing child porn, this will perhaps decrease child molestation in a way analogous to the decrease in rape and crime following the release of porn and violent movies.

What is required for this argument to be sound is evidence that availability of child porn results in less child molestation. Some will argue this is not the case, that child porn actually encourages pedophiles to act on their instincts. However, if the government takes the policy philosophy that they should ban anything that can encourage someone to do something illegal, then shouldn't violent movies also be banned because they can encourage people to murder?

Because legalizing any form of abuse against children is morally wrong.

You're using inverted logic and making analogies where none can be appropriately made.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

STOP THIS WITCH HUNT NOW!
Norak has posted an article which has nothing to do with him.
He didn't say if he supports this idea or not, but the article was actually talking about pornography in general.

Although I believe with controlled use within the right circumstances it can be a useful tool (drink multiple cups of coffee every 4 hours of every day for 3 or 4 weeks, and you lose all interest in coffee), I don't think personal use without supervision will do anything.
The hypersexual (Don Juan Syndrome) might actually see porn as an outlet for sexual fantasies that encourage this behavior, but in the hands of a sex therapist/psychiatrist it can be very useful (usually combined with anti depressants).

Note: Anime (not hentai) fan service (public nudity included) has been used for other studies of this type (sexualizing and objectifying minors included in study).

Nope, sorry.

Anyone advocating the depiction of children (real or CGI representations) in sexual situations are to be shunned. Trying to rationalize the need for child pornography by claiming that it will somehow help the abuser to control their urges is ludicrous. Any "doctor" that advocates objectifying minors to treat someone should be stripped of his credentials for violating the Hippocratic Oath. "First, do no harm" cannot be honored by reinforcing a behavior that is inherently destructive to other people.

Watching others in sexual situations doesn't alleviate your need to have sex, it enhances it. Watching it is a WHOLE lot different than actually DOING it. I'm not satiated after watching porn, I want to have sex.

 

[darlingguy2]

When? Never. Only a sicko would want to see a child having sex.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Nope, sorry.

Anyone advocating the depiction of children (real or CGI representations) in sexual situations are to be shunned. Trying to rationalize the need for child pornography by claiming that it will somehow help the abuser to control their urges is ludicrous. Any "doctor" that advocates objectifying minors to treat someone should be stripped of his credentials for violating the Hippocratic Oath. "First, do no harm" cannot be honored by reinforcing a behavior that is inherently destructive to other people.

Watching others in sexual situations doesn't alleviate your need to have sex, it enhances it. Watching it is a WHOLE lot different than actually DOING it. I'm not satiated after watching porn, I want to have sex.

I said, the study was about pornography in general.
Any mention of children or pedophilia in this thread was pure speculation and should not have received such a harsh response.

Yes, drawings and computer graphics (not the kind that morph adults into children) are protected by the Constitution as being free speech, no matter what the content is, for instance the new Web game "Eating Orphans".
People will not start eating babies because of that game, unless they are devil worshipers.

There is a more recent study that supports your argument, but it's pretty much like the video game violence bullshit.
The study is about prisoners who download child porn are more likely to sexually abuse children.
However, the unreleased study does not mention if they had previous encounters before downloading porn, had an unstable mind (insane) before downloading, or had mental disorders one can't really control.
http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2007/20070720125546.aspx
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56829

 

[Fantasies_only]

I think you misunderstood me when I said virtual child porn should be legal.
What I meant was in certain situations when virtual art is created by or owned by someone without so much as displaying his or her works, but as soon as it's distributed, sold, or uploaded, that person is doing something illegal, but the recipient, buyer, or downloader is fully within his or her rights.

I also think the real age should be shown, even if pretend regression is wanted.
"All models and pornographic images were 18 or over when the image was created, with full consent of the subject."

 

[Ippi]

Email him and the two of you can sign up for the Prexisting Child Porn Masturbation Program together.

You will be issued an ID card which will give you access to a special room in the basement of the nearest Federal Courthouse, where once a week for 30 minutes you may view child porn certified to have been produced before 1990. All persons portrayed in the porn are now adults and have signed waivers allowing you and other pedophile to view them on electronic media, engaged in sexual acts which were recorded when they were children.

If you believe you need more than 30 minutes or more than once a week to keep your desire to victimise a child under control, you will need to file form W-JOU812 with the local federal attourey for approval.

i did a wikipedia and a google search on that form, found nothing. are you sure that it is real? just curious, never heard of anything like that before ever

 

[bronzeage]

i did a wikipedia and a google search on that form, found nothing. are you sure that it is real? just curious, never heard of anything like that before ever

They are still looking for people to run the program.

Tips on how to apply for the program can be found at this site.

Pre-existing Child Porn Masturbation Program

 

[John Doe]

Suppose the government banned the production of further child porn to prevent any further child abuse yet kept a national database of child pornography that already exists. This national database of child porn is freely available to the public so that members of the population with pedophilic tendencies can satiate their desires in private without actually harming any children.

Yeah, you'd like that wouldn't you?

What is required for this argument to be sound is

Someone who's not a sociopath to say it, for starters.