Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Lak · 10-03-2007, 08:33 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?

10-03-2007, 08:33 PM	#74 (permalink)
Lak Insane Location: New Zealand	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? __________________ ignorance really is bliss.