Should Existing Child Porn be Legalized?

[sophieloves]

Proved it by only reading your first sentence.

yes, it's always easier not to bother than to engage the brain.

 

[Recidiva]

yes, it's always easier not to bother than to engage the brain.

Especially if the brain says the same thing. Over and over. Yes, you're learning.

 

[sophieloves]

Especially if the brain says the same thing. Over and over. Yes, you're learning.

shame you're not

 

[Laster]

WTF kind of mentality is that.

I say give all the child molesters and people who deal in child porn an “ADDADICKTOME” pronounced “add a dick to me”

Cut there dicks off sew them to there foreheads so everyone can see there a dickhead.

TXLassy

 

[xssve]

I don't think child pornwill decrease the incidence of molestation - haven't seen any studies on it, but generally in a pathology like this, acting out is not the best therapy.

In fact the syndrome itself probobly has much to do with arested development, i.e., the individual is stuck in particular phase of psychosexual development, rather than a probable hormonal dynamic such as same sex attraction which likely has to do with pheremonal and visual cues.

Exposure to adult sexual activity with arousal therapy of some sort would probobly be more efficacious as a form of displacement, basic operant conditioning of this sort may eventually lead to reformulation of what is and what is not an appropriate sexual object.

 

[norak]

There are a multitude of studies on the effect of frequent exposure to violent or sexual materials in media. Those studies have shown a positive correlation between said frequent exposure and a desensitization to the materials. Further studies have confirmed a direct causation. Translation: the more you watch it, the more comfortable you get with it. The logical extension here is that people watching child pornography will become more comfortable with child sexuality.

My plan was based on the idea that increasing child porn would decrease child molestation in the the same way that increasing adult porn decreases rape and increasing violent movies decreases violent crime. But you claim that a correlation between more porn and less rape does not mean that more porn reduces rape. You claim that porn desensitizes people and that a causal relationship has been found. Are you suggesting that when an individual is desensitized he or she is more likely to rape because he thinks it is normal? Would desensitization lead to lower rape because the individual is so desentitized the act becomes boring, therefore leading to lower demand? How do you explain the positive correlation found in the study if more porn causes more rape?

Assume that viewing child porn desensitizes viewers and makes them more likely to abuse children. Wouldn't this also apply to adult porn and violent movies? What if a government decided to ban Literotica because it desensitized readers and made them more comfortable with sexuality, which in turn leads to more comfort in paraphilias like pedophilia?

As I said before, "It could be argued...that even virtual child porn and child porn fiction can induce greater demand for actual videos depicting child abuse or even actual physical contact when children. But then again just about anything can induce demand for child sex, including child photography for clothing catalogs, parenting magazines, nudism photography, etc, and banning anything that a politician believes might induce greater demand for child porn may pose a threat to freedom of expression."

It's a slippery slope when we are talking about taking away freedom of expression. Suppose child porn promotes child molestation. Therefore, we ban child porn. Yet even adult porn can promote sexuality in general, which encourages child porn, which in turn promotes child molestation, and so through a longer chain of cause and effect adult porn causes child molestation. Totalitarianism is limited only by the creativity of a dictator to manufacture statistics proving causation in all the nodes in the chain of cause and effect that leads to child molestation.

Regardless of the fact that the pornography is already made, the child involved is re-victimized by the viewing of said pornography. If the material is widely disseminated, that child's life will be completely destroyed at an early age through no fault of his/her own. Even if the material is unpopular, the child is still re-victimized by its viewing in the same way an adult who was drugged and filmed would be re-victimized. The child is not old enough to give consent, period.

I was made aware of this problem from a previous post. Here was my reply: "To protect these people, the government would have to obtain consent from victims. The victims will be reminded that the child porn will be made legal because of the belief that legalization will reduce further child abuse. In an act of altruism to future generations, the victims of child abuse may consent to the videos being available to the public. In the event that no child abuse victims consent, the government may have to turn to virtual child porn."

This is sooo retarded on sooo many levels. Go kill yourself.

I think the first poster did something a bit different. His thoughts are based on retardation, and yours are based on wanting to slam liberals without regard to absurdity.

Suppose I am retarded. Do you think I'm inferior because of my handicap? To which branch of liberalism do you subscribe?

If you are truly going to champion legalizing existing child pornography and exposing those kids to more bullshit as adults over the circumstances in which they were victimized nonconsensually, I have the right to tell you that in my miseducated opinion your brains have leaked out through your ears.

My aim is to lower child abuse. My assumption is that child abuse is an evil to be reduced or eliminated. It's fine if you want to attack me, slam me, hurl verbal abuse and slurs, etc all in the name of fun. I see in that behavior an innocence I am trying to protect.

If you are in public, I can take your picture, you have no expectation of privacy.

Furthermore, if we cannot define "pornography" how the hell can we define a subset of it?

If you take pictures of someone in public, if you take pictures in which people are not the focus, e.g. if you take a picture of a building or statue that happens to capture some children in the background, that is not considered illegal. This is the tactic that legal pedophile Jack McClellan uses. Jack is a self-confessed pedophile (like Lindsay Ashford, etc) who is allowed to live in mainstream society. Recently, however, laws have been changed that may limit his freedoms.

If you can't define it how the hell can you sanely legislate it and then apply said legislation?

Well, what about the lines being drawn at Gay sex?

I mean, if they HAVE to de drawn, who gets to hold the crayon?

I have read legal acts and usually the definition of many things are worded to say that the definition of something like child porn depends on what a "reasonable person" would deem child porn. So no it cannot be defined precisely, but even the definition of a chair isn't precise when you think about it. Is a sword a chair if someone sticks the blade in the ground and sits on the end of the handle? Is a chair defined by function, form, or other stuff? This is also related to topics in philosophy 101 like the idea of idealized forms in the universe or whether there are no ideals or universals but perceptions and social constructs. Plato and other big minds have pondered over these ideas and even today there is debate.

Child porn is illegal now and it is still produced, no program of making current porn legal and new porn illegal would stop the production of new child porn, just the opposite.

Unless the creation of child porn today is fuel by the demand for child porn, which exists because child porn is not widely available. But if child porn is widely available and if that child porn availability decreases demand for further child porn production as well as decreasing cases of child abuse, then children in today's generation as well as future generations are better off.

 

[bronzeage]

yes, it's always easier not to bother than to engage the brain.

Hi Sophie,
This guy comes around every few weeks with a new name to take another shot at it. He wants Lit to accept erotic stories about children. His earlier arguments were for free speech and then fell back on the "no harm done" principal.

Now he returns, trying to show a benefit of child porn. Who does this benefit? The pedophile of course and the unkown future victims who are spared his attention.

The argument does not hold water. No one has the right to practice pedophilia and we are not obligated to make it easier for them.

 

[davidwinters]

Very interesting point. Can they legalize marijuana at the same time then we could jerk of to kiddy porn and smoke a doob at the same time without fear of the door being kicked in. LOL

 

[Recidiva]

Very interesting point. Can they legalize marijuana at the same time then we could jerk of to kiddy porn and smoke a doob at the same time without fear of the door being kicked in. LOL

Marijuana should be legal. They're your brain cells. Do what you want. Just don't hurt people while doing so. There are already laws to cover that anyway.

 

[sophieloves]

Hi Sophie,
This guy comes around every few weeks with a new name to take another shot at it. He wants Lit to accept erotic stories about children. His earlier arguments were for free speech and then fell back on the "no harm done" principal.

Now he returns, trying to show a benefit of child porn. Who does this benefit? The pedophile of course and the unkown future victims who are spared his attention.

The argument does not hold water. No one has the right to practice pedophilia and we are not obligated to make it easier for them.

hey bronze, thanks for your reply

as i said, being new here i don't know the histories. but it seems to me that an argument put forward can be debated, and that you and i agree that it wouldn't work in this case nor would we wish to promote or facilitate it in any way. but these views can be put forward in a way that doesn't smack of personal vendettas. as an outsider, i like to listen to all sides of an argument before coming to any conclusions, and even then i assume my conclusions may be flawed due to improper consideration or lack of real facts on which to base it.

imo, and that only, it seems to me a soundly thought out and reasoned response as to why the OP's post can be discounted has far more impact on readers than some twats mouthing off screaming 'paedophile'.

i like to use both my gut instincts, which i trust, and my own reasoning - weigh things up. usually, as in this case, my gut instinct was reinforced by thinking the matter through.

 

[Pookie]

Suppose I am retarded. Do you think I'm inferior because of my handicap?

I wouldn't necessarily think you're inferior because you're retarded. But it would go a long way toward explaining such a retarded proposal.

 

[semen4her]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-10/1224424/FUcopy.jpg

lol

 

[Recidiva]

My aim is to lower child abuse. My assumption is that child abuse is an evil to be reduced or eliminated. It's fine if you want to attack me, slam me, hurl verbal abuse and slurs, etc all in the name of fun. I see in that behavior an innocence I am trying to protect.

Then education and protection are what you need to focus on here.

Yes, child abuse is an evil to be reduced or eliminated.

I do not hang pictures of my kids outside the house in the hopes that if people just use the pictures, they won't want the kids. I'm afraid your argument is erroneous.

If you want to get rid of a threat, you increase security, not build a back door in the hopes that someone will only steal "a few things" and leave you alone.

 

[Pookie]

Then education and protection are what you need to focus on here.

Yes, child abuse is an evil to be reduced or eliminated.

I do not hang pictures of my kids outside the house in the hopes that if people just use the pictures, they won't want the kids. I'm afraid your argument is erroneous.

If you want to get rid of a threat, you increase security, not build a back door in the hopes that someone will only steal "a few things" and leave you alone.

His premise is ludicrous. The idea that watching legal child porn will satisfy someone's desire to have sex with a child is idiotic. In many cases, child porn is used to help seduce a child. This fucker has no clue what the fuck he's proposing.

 

[Recidiva]

His premise is ludicrous. The idea that watching legal child porn will satisfy someone's desire to have sex with a child is idiotic. In many cases, child porn is used to help seduce a child. This fucker has no clue what the fuck he's proposing.

Yeah, but when I say stuff like "Duh" they ask me to elaborate.

You can't just keep using my brain, people, you need permission!

 

[PannieMonster]

His premise is ludicrous. The idea that watching legal child porn will satisfy someone's desire to have sex with a child is idiotic. In many cases, child porn is used to help seduce a child. This fucker has no clue what the fuck he's proposing.

The idea that there is such a thing as "legal child porn" is ludicrous. If there is pornography involving a child then it was made illegally. Unfortunately, some ass wipe makes this kind of porn and somehow manages to get it on the open market to be sold legally. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as legal child porn.

 

[Byron In Exile]

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?

Your first sentence states that "there is evidence that Internet porn reduces rape," and simultaneously provides a link in support of that statement to an article which does not support that statement.

Therefore, your post fails.

Consequently, your thread fails, and, as the initial post's author, you fail.

Thank you for gracing the GB with this charming and wonderfully fascinating truckload of fail.

Go seize the day.

 

[Recidiva]

Your first sentence states that "Internet porn reduces rape," and simultaneously provides a link in support of that statement to an article which does not support that statement.

Therefore, your post fails.

Consequently, your thread fails, and, as the initial post's author, you fail.

Thank you for gracing the GB with this charming and wonderfully fascinating truckload of fail.

Go seize the day.

*raises a glass*

 

[Guest]

My plan was based on the idea that increasing child porn would decrease child molestation in the the same way that increasing adult porn decreases rape and increasing violent movies decreases violent crime. But you claim that a correlation between more porn and less rape does not mean that more porn reduces rape. You claim that porn desensitizes people and that a causal relationship has been found. Are you suggesting that when an individual is desensitized he or she is more likely to rape because he thinks it is normal? Would desensitization lead to lower rape because the individual is so desentitized the act becomes boring, therefore leading to lower demand? How do you explain the positive correlation found in the study if more porn causes more rape?

But your plan is based on the FALLIBLE premise that there is a direct causation between adult porn viewing and a decrease in rapes. If your premise was solid, we might be arguing on different ground. All your study showed was a positive correlation. That positive correlation could be explained by any one of a million factors, and further study would be required to determine the source of it.

Assume that viewing child porn desensitizes viewers and makes them more likely to abuse children. Wouldn't this also apply to adult porn and violent movies? What if a government decided to ban Literotica because it desensitized readers and made them more comfortable with sexuality, which in turn leads to more comfort in paraphilias like pedophilia?

The causation of desensitization to violence and sexuality by frequent exposure to violent and sexual materials means only that the viewer's discomfort with such materials decreases. A person who views rape porn frequently would, therefore, become more comfortable with violent sexual acts and rape. Regardless, decreasing inhibitions is not enough to guarantee a person commits a crime. It is on the individual to limit their exposure, to form healthy sexual relationships outside their viewing, and/or to acknowledge that the material they are viewing is fictional. The fact that such material is desensitizing is not sufficient to brand it illegal, but it does shoot a hell of a hole through your idea of using child pornography for treatment of pedophilia.

Sexuality does not lead to paraphilia, but rather, damage or stunting in normal psychosexual development. There are a variety of factors that lead to sexual deviancy, and I'd love to give you the list, but that would require me to sift through my terribly organized notes. Google it.

To sum things up, child pornography (whether it is already produced or not) does a whole lot of harm and not a damned bit of good. The goal of treating pedophilia is a positive one, but you're on the wrong track.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KinkyDaisy]

I didnt read this entire thread and dont plan on it. While im sure this has been brought up somewhere .. i cant resist my 2cents.

Do you have any idea what it does to a person to see images/videos of past abuse? Why should victims have to live with the fact that this shit is out there legally? Oh yeah .. for the greater good (if you are dim enough to believe that the internet prevents rape).

In my opinion .. victims of childhood abuse in any form owe "the greater good" nothing.

 

[Wrong Element]

...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?

I haven't read this entire thread yet so I don't know if anyone else has made this point, but an obvious difference here is that no one is actually being killed in the making of violent movies. Child porn isn't banned because it might "encourage people to do something illegal," it's banned because a violent crime is necessary to produce it in the first place.

I hope the thread starter is just some guy who gets off on traveling to various bulletin boards and winding people up with silly devil's advocate-type posts, and that he doesn't really believe this shit.

 

[Recidiva]

I haven't read this entire thread yet so I don't know if anyone else has made this point, but an obvious difference here is that no one is actually being killed in the making of violent movies. Child porn isn't banned because it might "encourage people to do something illegal," it's banned because a violent crime is necessary to produce it in the first place.

I hope the thread starter is just some guy who gets off on traveling to various bulletin boards and winding people up with silly devil's advocate-type posts, and that he doesn't really believe this shit.

Fortunately we come pre-wound, so no harm done.

 

[Byron In Exile]

You should sneak off while you still have a chance.

That would have been at some point before hitting "Submit New Thread."

 

[Mansa Musa]

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?

Yeah, right. Legalize existing child porn, then watch the rates of child molestation skyrocket. Gviing pedophiles material to "seduce" children is a very bad idea. After all, even the most recalcitrant child could be convinced to have sex with an adult if he or she is shown pictures of children having sex with adults. Words can be ignored or disbelieved, as far as sex goes, but showing children pictures of an action tends to make it "real". Hundreds of children have hurt themselves imitating superheroes and daredevils.If a child is confronted with an adult penis, and the adult just happens to have a magazine full of pictures of adults having sex with children in the room, that child would think that the organ "can fit", despite any other evidence involved. You fail at being a human, never mind a person. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.